The Reds believe they were robbed of a rightful goal at the Etihad…
Liverpool have contacted the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) to express their dissatisfaction with the decision to disallow Virgil van Dijk’s goal in Sunday’s 3-0 defeat to Manchester City.
The incident occurred with City leading 1-0 at the Etihad Stadium when Van Dijk appeared to have levelled the score with a close-range header.
However, referee Chris Kavanagh ruled the goal out, a call that was later upheld following a VAR review led by Michael Oliver.
VAR determined that Andrew Robertson was in an offside position and had interfered with play. The Scottish defender was standing directly in front of City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and was judged to have made an “obvious action” by ducking as the ball travelled past him, which officials deemed to have impacted the keeper’s ability to play the ball.
Liverpool, however, have disputed that interpretation. The club believe the decision does not meet the criteria set out in Law 11 of the game’s offside regulations.
They argue that Robertson’s movement did not obstruct Donnarumma’s line of sight or prevent him from attempting to make a save, and therefore the goal should have stood.
Liverpool have contacted PGMOL to raise significant concerns about Virgil van Dijk’s disallowed goal against Manchester City. They believe a mistake was made and the goal should not have been ruled out 💬 pic.twitter.com/efmR4xESnL
— Sky Sports Premier League (@SkySportsPL) November 10, 2025
After reviewing all available footage from multiple camera angles, Liverpool maintain that the Italian goalkeeper’s view of the ball was never significantly impeded.
They are also said to be frustrated that the VAR process did not end with the goal being reinstated despite what they believe to be inconclusive evidence of interference.
While the club accept the final result of the match, they decided to formally contact Howard Webb, head of PGMOL, to ensure that the incident receives proper review.
Liverpool’s position is that such a contentious decision cannot be allowed to pass without accountability or discussion, especially given its implications for future interpretations of similar situations.
According to the official wording of Law 11, an offside player should only be penalised if they become active by: “interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate, or interfering with an opponent by preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision, or challenging an opponent for the ball, or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent, or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.”
