Robertson row shows the problems VAR can never fix

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

Howard Webb has been the head of the Premier League referees long enough now, almost three years, to know that backing his officials over Virgil van Dijk's disallowed goal against Manchester City would not end the discussion.Van Dijk thought he had equalised for Liverpool at the Etihad on Sunday, only for Chris Kavanagh and his assistant Stuart Burt to rule that Andrew Robertson had committed an offside offence, supported by the VAR team, by ducking under the ball on its way to goal.This is one of the most complex and highly subjective parts of the law. There is no "right" decision, only alternative viewpoints based upon an interpretation of events.Offside is covered by law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26., externalThe graphic below clarifies the law and the Premier League's match centre on X made specific reference to the incident."The referee's call of offside and no goal to Liverpool was checked and confirmed by VAR - with Robertson in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper," it said.An obvious action is something which may impact an opponent from being able to get to the ball.

He's very, very close to him."It was the assistant VAR, Tim Wood, who drove the discussion in the VAR room, saying: "I agree with the on-field decision. I think it's offside.

Webb addressed it, stressing that the obvious action, and being close to the goalkeeper, were still valid, or shall we say reasonable, reasons for the goal to be ruled out on their own.One side can think it's reasonable, and the other unreasonable.Webb also pointed out that goalkeepers regularly make miraculous saves which made it difficult to over-ride the on-field opinion of clear impact on Donnarumma.But, as is the way with technical decisions, supporters don't tend to be interested in explanations. One side can think it's obvious, and the other might not.It highlights one of the biggest issues with VAR, that a decision can have two valid outcomes and there will always be an aggrieved party.