Howard Webb accepts the decision made by the refereeing team in the match against Manchester City.
Howard Webb, the head of English refereeing, offered a detailed defence of the decision to disallow Virgil van Dijk’s equaliser against Manchester City, placing the focus on the interpretation of offside interference.
The incident came when Andy Robertson, positioned close to goal and beyond the last defender, moved underneath a shot that travelled into the net. Match officials judged that his position and movement affected the goalkeeper’s ability to make a save, which constitutes interfering with an opponent under Law 11.
On his weekly television review, Webb acknowledged why the call proved contentious for Liverpool, who promptly lodged a complaint, but underlined that the officials’ reasoning fell within the framework provided by the Laws of the Game. He highlighted two components that referees are trained to weigh in these situations. First, the static element, which is the attacker’s position relative to the goalkeeper and the flight of the ball. Second, the dynamic element, which is the attacker’s action as the ball passes. Robertson’s crouch a few metres from the goal line, directly in line with the shot, was considered a meaningful action that could impact the goalkeeper’s reaction, even if the keeper’s view of the initial strike was not fully blocked. That is the crux of interference by obstructing an opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.
This kind of decision lives in the grey zone where subjective judgement is inevitable. The threshold is not whether the goalkeeper had zero visibility but whether the offside attacker’s position or action had a clear impact on the keeper’s ability to save or play the ball. Officials are expected to consider proximity, timing, movement, and the trajectory of the shot. In practice, the closer the attacker is to the goalkeeper and the more directly aligned the attacker is with the ball’s path, the stronger the argument for interference. Conversely, if the attacker is offset from the ball’s line, makes no movement that could influence the keeper, or is far enough away to be irrelevant, the goal is more likely to stand.
Webb also explained how the on field team and the VAR crew share responsibility. The assistant referee and the referee evaluate offside position and possible interference in real time. VAR then checks for a clear error in that process. Because interference hinges on feel and context, VAR typically does not re-referee the subjective judgement unless the broadcast angles show something definitively missed or misread. In this case, the on field officials deemed that Robertson’s movement below the flight of the ball materially affected the goalkeeper’s chances. VAR reviewed and supported that view, which kept the on field decision in place.
Liverpool’s frustration is understandable in football terms. From an attacking perspective, it can appear harsh when an offside teammate does not touch the ball yet the goal is disallowed. The counter argument is rooted in fairness to defenders and goalkeepers. An attacker cannot gain an advantage by occupying a position that draws the keeper’s attention, alters the keeper’s set position, or forces even a micro hesitation at the crucial moment. Law 11 is written to prevent attackers from freeloading near the goalmouth and benefiting from proximity without touching the ball. The challenge for officials is drawing the line consistently, which is why Webb’s public explanations matter. Transparency helps fans and clubs understand how these calls are taught and applied.
The broader context is one of continual calibration. IFAB circulars and annual guidance often refine how interference should be interpreted. Phrases like line of vision, ability to play the ball, and impact on the opponent are deliberately used to anchor decisions. PGMOL has tried to bring more consistency by showing officials clips that establish reference points. Scenarios where the offside player makes an evasive movement directly in front of goal tend to be penalised, because even a duck or step can alter a keeper’s reading of height and trajectory. Scenarios where the offside player is clearly off to one side, static, and not interacting with opponents tend to be allowed.
For the match itself, the outcome removed any hypothetical turning point. Manchester City ultimately won 3 to 0 in matchweek 11, which muted the competitive stakes of the disallowed equaliser. Even so, moments like this shape the wider debate on officiating standards, VAR intervention levels, and communication. Liverpool’s complaint reflects a recurring theme across top leagues where clubs seek clarification not only on single calls but on the underlying principles that will guide future decisions.
Webb’s stance aimed to strike a balance between empathy and firmness. He recognised that reasonable people can disagree on a judgement call while affirming that the refereeing team applied the law in a defendable way. That approach aligns with PGMOL’s recent commitment to explain decisions more openly, reduce mystery around VAR protocols, and build a library of examples that clubs and supporters can consult. The hope is that over time the sport will see fewer shocks and more predictability in offside interference rulings.
Looking ahead, this incident will likely feature in the next round of referee education clips. Coaches and analysts will use it as a teaching tool for attackers to adjust positioning near goal, and for defenders and goalkeepers to understand how to communicate with officials during play. For supporters, it offers a reminder that offside has evolved beyond the simple question of whether a player touched the ball. Influence can be visual, positional, or behavioural, and in tight spaces near the goal every small cue matters.
In short, the disallowed goal sits in the difficult middle where football’s laws intersect with human judgement. Webb’s explanation sets out why the decision was made and why it met the standard of rational officiating. Liverpool may remain unconvinced, but the reference points are clear. Proximity, alignment with the ball’s path, and an active movement that can affect the keeper are likely to bring the flag and preserve the defending team’s protection under Law 11.
