Liverpool contact PGMO over Van Dijk's disallowed goal at Manchester City

"Van Dijk's effort was ruled out in the 38th minute, when City were leading 1-0, and the referee Chris Kavanagh's on-field decision was backed by the video assistant referee, Michael Oliver. The VAR agreed that the Liverpool defender Andy Robertson was in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper when ducking out the way of Van Dijk's header as it sailed past Gianluigi Donnarumma."

"Law 11 states that a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a teammate, 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."

"Liverpool dispute that interpretation and do not believe the City goalkeeper's line of vision was affected by Robertson. The club are bewildered that VAR did not allow the goal to stand and have contacted Howard Webb, the head of the refereeing body, to challenge the decision. Liverpool do not believe the wording of Law 11 applies to what Robertson did."

Liverpool complained to the Professional Games Match Officials (PGMO) after Virgil van Dijk's header was ruled out in the 38th minute with City leading 1-0. Referee Chris Kavanagh's on-field decision was backed by VAR Michael Oliver, who judged Andy Robertson to be offside and making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper. Liverpool contend Robertson did not affect the goalkeeper's line of vision and have contacted Howard Webb to challenge the ruling. The club state that the wording of Law 11 does not apply to Robertson's movement. Arne Slot called the decision a clear and obvious error.

Read at www.theguardian.com