Virgil van Dijk was unhappy with the decision to disallow the goal

What Does the Law Say?

Under Law 11: Offside, a player in an offside position must be penalised if they:

Interfere with play by touching the ball,
Interfere with an opponent by:
- Obstructing their line of vision,
- Challenging for the ball,
- Making an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

In This Case:

Andy Robertson was in an offside position.
He ducked under the flight of the ball while in front of goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma, although slightly to his side.
VAR concluded that this was an “obvious action” that may have affected the keeper’s ability or decision-making.

This is not strictly about line of sight, but the psychological or reactive impact of the movement. The mere act of ducking near the ball can cause hesitation in the goalkeeper, and that alone meets the threshold under the rule’s wording.

Expert & Pundit Reaction

Andrew Robertson ducked out of the way of Virgil van Dijk’s header to allow the ball to go into the net

Danny Murphy, Wayne Rooney, and others believed the goal should have stood, as Robertson didn’t block vision or touch the ball.
Gary Neville was unsure: said he wasn’t convinced Donnarumma could have saved it.
Dion Dublin added that Robertson wasn’t in the line of sight but did move.
Refereeing analysts emphasised that “ducking” was the key action that influenced the decision.

Context: Why It Was Disallowed

The subjective interpretation here centers on:

Robertson’s position (in the six-yard box, close to Donnarumma),
His movement (ducking) as the ball passes over him,
The impact on the goalkeeper’s decision-making, not necessarily on his line of sight.

Once the assistant flagged, and VAR supported that the on-field call was not a clear error, it was unlikely to be overturned—even though it’s borderline.

Similar Precedents

2020: Calvert-Lewin’s goal (Everton v Man United) disallowed for Gylfi Sigurdsson ducking—referee: Chris Kavanagh.
2023: Man City’s goal v Wolves allowed after Bernardo Silva stood near Sa but did not duck—referee also Chris Kavanagh.
This decision remains consistent with how subjective offside has been interpreted in the past by this referee.

Verdict: Was the Call Correct?

According to the letter of the law: Yes.

According to the spirit and fairness of the game: Arguably No.

Referee consistency? Mixed—prior similar situations have seen different outcomes.

Room for interpretation? Absolutely. That’s what made this such a talking point.

Final Word

This was a supportable but controversial decision. In a VAR era where subjectivity still plays a role, borderline calls like this will always divide opinion. If the on-field officials had let it stand, VAR likely wouldn’t have overturned it either. The call depended not on fact, but interpretation—and in this case, the benefit of the doubt was not given to the attacking team.