Robertson Row Exposes Flaws VAR Will Never Solve

Robertson Row Shows the Problems VAR Can Never Fix

By Howard Webb’s own admission, the decision to disallow Virgil van Dijk’s goal against Manchester City wasn’t necessarily wrong—but it wasn’t definitively right either. Instead, it landed in VAR’s most dangerous grey area: subjective interpretation.

As Andrew Robertson ducked under the ball en route to goal, assistant referee Stuart Burt judged it as interfering with play—backed by VAR officials Michael Oliver and Tim Wood. Liverpool’s equaliser was chalked off, sparking fresh debate over whether VAR is fit for purpose in cases where no single interpretation is truly definitive.

What the Law Says

The incident falls under Law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game, which states a player in an offside position may be penalised if they make an “obvious action which impacts an opponent’s ability to play the ball.”

The Premier League’s official match centre later explained:

“Robertson was in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper.”

In this case, that “obvious action” was ducking. While it may seem like a passive move, such gestures are included in modern interpretations as potential interference—whether intentional or not.

Inside the VAR Room

The released VAR audio confirmed:

• Stuart Burt noted Robertson was “very, very close” to goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and “ducked under the ball.”

• Assistant VAR Tim Wood agreed, citing “a clear, obvious action which clearly impacts the goalkeeper.”

• Michael Oliver then concluded: “He is in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper and makes an obvious movement… check complete: offside.”

Notably, no direct review of the goalkeeper’s line of sight was made—something many Liverpool fans believe could have changed the outcome.

Reasonable vs Unreasonable – A 40-60 Call?

Howard Webb later described the call as “not unreasonable”—a deliberately cautious phrase that avoids declaring it correct outright. Why? Because in subjective moments like this, multiple outcomes can be deemed valid.

❝ VAR doesn’t work on marginal calls. It works on clear and obvious errors. ❞

This was never going to be that. At best, it’s a 60-40 decision in favour of the officials, but certainly not ironclad enough to silence critics.

The Bigger VAR Problem

The Robertson controversy is a textbook case of VAR’s limitations. While technology can rectify factual errors—like offside lines or mistaken identity—it struggles when faced with interpretive nuance.

Fans are rarely interested in nuance. For them, it’s binary: goal or no goal, justice or injustice.

Yet, the offside rule now includes gestures, movements, and distractions. Ducking, dummying, stepping over the ball—these can all count as “obvious actions” even if the player doesn’t touch the ball.

The issue? Most people didn’t even know that. And VAR’s inability to communicate the intent behind these laws in real time only deepens the confusion and resentment.

Final Thought: Subjectivity Will Always Divide

VAR was never going to eliminate all controversy. In fact, it amplifies moments like this—where football law, human perception, and fan passion intersect.

Robertson’s duck will now live alongside countless other contentious decisions that VAR reviewed but could never settle with finality. Because some decisions in football aren’t about being right or wrong—they’re about interpretation.

And that’s a problem VAR was never built to fix.