Mark Clattenburg responds to Virgil van Dijk disallowed goal, Andy Robertson needed to change one thing

Below is a summary of the full article. Click here for the full version from Rousing the Kop or go back to LFC Live.

Liverpool thought they had levelled the game shortly before half time.The Reds suffered yet another Premier League defeat, with this one being tougher to take than most given that it was against a direct title rival.It could have been very different, though, with Virgil van Dijk thinking he had levelled the game up in the 39th minute with an excellent header.Join our newsletter for news & smart analysis. However, VAR judged Andy Robertson to be interfering with Gianluigi Donnarumma’s eye line and ruled it out for offside, a decision that has split opinion.

Former referee Mark Clattenburg has exclusively given his thoughts on the matter, and he believes Robertson needed to do one thing differently. Photo by Liverpool FC/Liverpool FC via Getty ImagesAndy Robertson should not have ducked, says Mark ClattenburgAnother Premier League game and yet another VAR controversy, with this being one that infuriated Arne Slot on the sideline.It is understandable too as it looked to be a perfectly good goal, although it is equally justifiable as to why it was ruled out.Clattenburg told RTK exactly that, with the former referee believing that Robertson needed to move out of the way rather than duck.“It will split opinions but Andrew Robertson is in an offside position in front of the goalkeeper when Virgil Van Dijk heads the ball into the goal,” he told Rousing The Kop.“I believe if Robertson had made a movement to the left or right and had not ducked under the ball which distracted the goalkeeper, he would not have been punished for being in the offside position.READ MORE: Hugo Ekitike gives verdict on playing alongside Alexander Isak at Liverpool one day“Robertson does not affect the line of vision as a defender was blocking this and does not impact his ability to save the ball but clearly distracts.”“He was offside, but the question is ‘does he distract, in line of vision or affects his ability to play the ball?’“This is why it’s subjective and everyone will have an opinion.”Gary Neville believes the goal should have stoodMany of the pundits also agreed and believed that the decision was harsh, with one of these being Gary Neville.The former Man United player thinks that Donnarumma was not getting near the ball anyway, hence why the goal should have stood.“I think he is outside the eyeline of the goalkeeper.

I think Slot is right to be fuming,” he said on Sky Sports.“The goalkeeper is not getting anywhere near that. He had a clear line of sight.”