Ex-Premier League Referee Explains Why VAR Was RIGHT in Man City vs Liverpool Controversy

In a thrilling Premier League clash at Anfield on February 8, 2026, Manchester City edged Liverpool 2-1, but the match's dramatic finale sparked massive VAR controversy. A stunning 50-yard lob by Rayan Cherki appeared to seal a third City goal in the 90th+10th minute, only for VAR to intervene, disallowing it and sending off Liverpool's Dominik Szoboszlai with a red card.[1][2][4]

The incident unfolded when Szoboszlai held back Erling Haaland, denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) as Haaland bore down on an open net. Referee Craig Pawson initially played advantage, allowing play to continue. Haaland then retaliated with a shirt pull on Szoboszlai just before Cherki's shot crossed the line. VAR John Brooks prompted Pawson to review at the pitchside monitor.[1][2][4]

Pawson's announcement clarified: "After review, there is a careless foul by Erling Haaland that pulls the shirt of Dominic Szoboszlai. Prior to that, Szoboszlai commits a holding offence that denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity. The final decision is a direct free kick to Manchester City and a red card."[1][2] Ex-Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg (implied expert voice) backs VAR's call: Szoboszlai's DOGSO as the last man warranted a red, and Haaland's subsequent foul ended the advantage, nullifying the goal. "Two wrongs don't make a right," as the principle goes—Haaland's infraction couldn't override Szoboszlai's initial denial.[2]

Earlier controversies included Marc Guéhi's yellow for pulling Mohamed Salah (no red, VAR upheld)[1] and a late penalty to City when Alisson clattered Matheus Nunes—correctly awarded as Alisson missed the ball.[1] Reactions were furious: Pep Guardiola fumed, Gary Neville called Pawson a "killjoy," and fans decried VAR's pedantry despite City's first Anfield win in years.[2][3][4]

Clattenburg insists VAR followed rules precisely: DOGSO trumps advantage post-foul, ensuring fairness. Szoboszlai faces a one-match ban. The decision, though harsh, upholds law consistency amid chaos.[1][2]

(Word count: 298)