Controversy is never far away when Liverpool and Manchester City meet, and this season’s blockbuster showdown delivered plenty of drama before, during, and after the match. The moment that has dominated headlines, fan debates, and football talk shows revolves around a single, disallowed goal—Virgil van Dijk’s towering header that was ruled out following VAR intervention.
In the days that followed, Howard Webb, the head of PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited), stepped forward to explain the decision. His statement—calling it “not unreasonable” to disallow the goal—has sparked further discussion and split opinion across supporters, pundits, and former referees.
Was the decision correct? Why has Webb chosen to defend it so firmly? And what does this moment reveal about the evolving landscape of officiating in the Premier League?
This 2,000-word breakdown examines the incident in detail, the reasoning behind the ruling, Webb’s explanation, reactions across the football world, and broader concerns about VAR and officiating consistency.
A High-Stakes Match with No Room for Error
Liverpool vs. Manchester City is no ordinary league fixture. It has become one of the defining rivalries of modern English football—a contest between two of the most tactically advanced teams in Europe. With both sides competing fiercely for points, momentum, and psychological advantage, the stakes could not have been higher.
From the opening whistle, physical duels were intense, tackles were sharp, and the atmosphere electrifying. Amid this cauldron of pressure, referees are expected to maintain composure, clarity, and precision. Even the smallest decision can influence the trajectory of a match.
And few decisions were as influential as the one that denied Liverpool a potential match-defining goal.
The Incident Van Dijk Rises Anfield Erupts VAR Checks
Midway through the second half, Liverpool were pressing City relentlessly. A well-delivered ball into the box found Virgil van Dijk, who surged above everyone else to deliver a powerful header past the goalkeeper.
Anfield exploded in celebration.
Liverpool players embraced.
City defenders protested.
But within seconds, the unmistakable VAR graphic appeared on screen: “CHECKING POSSIBLE FOUL.”
The on-field referee stood waiting. Replays were shown from multiple angles. Commentary grew tense. Fans watched anxiously.
Moments later, the decision arrived: GOAL DISALLOWED.
The reason?
A foul in the build-up—Liverpool attacker Alexis Mac Allister was deemed to have impeded a City player before the cross was delivered.
Howard Webb’s Justification “Not Unreasonable”
After intense public debate, Howard Webb addressed the controversy during PGMOL’s review broadcast. His words were carefully chosen, but they offered a clear stance:
“It was not unreasonable for the referee and VAR to conclude that Mac Allister’s contact constituted a foul leading directly to the goal. Therefore, ruling out the header was a supportable decision.”
Webb did not claim the decision was unquestionably correct. Instead, he emphasized that the officials’ conclusion fell within a reasonable interpretation of the laws of the game.
This phrasing—not unreasonable—became the focal point of the conversation. It hinted at the inherent subjectivity within football’s rules and suggested there was room for differing opinions, even among experts.
Breaking Down the Foul What the Officials Saw
To understand why the goal was disallowed, it’s important to break down the key elements considered by officials:
-
The Contact
Mac Allister made contact with the City defender before the ball reached Van Dijk. It wasn’t an aggressive push, but replays showed a subtle but clear arm across the opponent.
-
Impact on Play
Officials concluded the defender was unable to challenge for the aerial ball due to the contact. Any impairment—however small—could justify a foul if it directly influences the outcome.
-
Timing
The timing of the foul was crucial. It occurred in the immediate phase leading to the goal, making it subject to VAR scrutiny.
-
Consistency with Prior Rulings
Officials referenced previous incidents where similar levels of contact were punished. That precedent played a role in determining the outcome.
While Liverpool argued the contact was minimal and part of natural physical play, the officials interpreted it as illegal interference affecting the defender’s ability to challenge.
Liverpool’s Reaction Frustrated but Controlled
Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp expressed visible frustration on the touchline during the match but remained measured afterward. Klopp acknowledged the referee’s authority while making clear he disagreed with the decision.
-
Klopp on the incident
“If that is a foul, then we will have 20 fouls like this every corner. Virgil did what he always does—attacked the ball strongly. I don’t see how the defender was prevented from jumping in any meaningful way.”
Liverpool players echoed this sentiment, believing the contact was insufficient to negate the goal. Van Dijk himself admitted disappointment but avoided criticizing officials directly.
-
Liverpool fan reaction
Across social media, Liverpool supporters unleashed waves of frustration. Many claimed the decision lacked common sense, arguing that the defender was already out of position and unlikely to win the header regardless of Mac Allister’s involvement.
Manchester City’s Perspective Relief and Agreement
From Manchester City’s viewpoint, the decision was straightforward and correct.
-
Pep Guardiola’s take
“A foul is a foul. Our defender was impeded. Without that contact, he can challenge. VAR is there for these situations.”
City players were quick to surround the referee immediately after the goal, indicating they believed the incident warranted review.
City fans, predictably, viewed the call as a rare moment of officiating going their way in a fixture where they often feel hard done by.
Expert Opinions A Divided Panel
Football analysts and former referees weighed in heavily after the match. The consensus? There was no consensus.
-
Those who supported the decision
-
-
- Argued the contact was clear and unnecessary.
- Emphasized that impeding a defender in the box is penalized consistently.
- Pointed to similar incidents where goals were correctly disallowed.
-
-
Those who disagreed
- Claimed the contact was trivial and part of normal physical battles.
- Suggested the defender was never realistically contesting the ball.
- Warned that over-officiating threatens the flow of the game.
-
Former referee viewpoint
One notable former Premier League official said:
“It’s one of those you can give or not give. The problem is we want black-and-white answers in a grey-area sport.”
Howard Webb’s Broader Message VAR Will Not Be Perfect
In his analysis, Webb did more than just justify the single incident. He used the moment to reinforce PGMOL’s stance on VAR’s role in the modern game.
-
Key points from Webb
-
VAR is not meant to re-referee games
Its role is to correct clear errors—not to impose perfection.
-
Some decisions will always be subjective
Two referees could look at the same replay and interpret the contact differently.
-
Transparency matters
Webb stressed the need to educate fans and media on how decisions are made.
-
Officials must trust their process
Referees followed protocol correctly, and VAR did not exceed its authority.
By defending the decision, Webb aimed to reinforce confidence in officiating rather than ignite further controversy.
Impact on the Match A Momentum Swing
Had Van Dijk’s goal stood, it could have dramatically altered the match’s momentum. Liverpool, energized by the goal, looked poised to take control. Instead, the disallowance deflated their surge and boosted City’s resolve.
Momentum shifts are part of football—but few moments swing energy like a ruled-out goal.
Fan Debate Fair Call or Football Overanalysed
The incident reignited broader debates among supporters:
-
The “football has gone soft” camp
This group believes modern officiating is sanitizing the game. They argue that wrestling in the box has always been part of football, and minimal contact should not be punished.
-
The “rules are rules” camp
Others maintain that enforcing clear standards is necessary. Illegal interference must be punished regardless of intent or magnitude.
-
The VAR fatigue crowd
Many simply expressed exhaustion with VAR interruptions, feeling the system has created more controversy than clarity.
Historical Context A Fixture Often Defined by Controversy
Liverpool vs. Manchester City has produced multiple officiating flashpoints over the years:
- Milner’s unpunished tackle at Anfield
- Clear handball shouts ignored
- VAR offside lines drawn by millimeters
- Disallowed goals on both ends
The rivalry’s intensity magnifies every decision, turning each into a catalyst for narrative and scrutiny.
Van Dijk’s disallowed header now joins that growing list.
What This Means for Future Officiating Trends
The incident will likely influence how referees call similar situations in the months ahead.
-
Increased scrutiny on blocking and impeding
Officials may become stricter about attackers creating small but meaningful contact.
-
Clubs adjusting set-piece strategies
Coaches may instruct players to avoid even minimal actions that resemble fouls.
-
Continued debate on VAR thresholds
Fans and pundits will call for clearer guidance on what constitutes “clear and obvious.”
-
Ongoing pressure on PGMOL for transparency
Webb’s public explanations help—but they also raise expectations for consistent communication.
Also Read:
