The VAR Debate Reignites at Anfield
Liverpool's disappointing 3-0 home defeat to Nottingham Forest was overshadowed by a major VAR controversy, echoing a decision that went against the Reds just two weeks prior. The pivotal moment arrived on 34 minutes when Forest's Murillo scored, a goal that was allowed to stand despite a clear parallel to Virgil van Dijk's disallowed effort for Liverpool at Manchester City.
Two Similar Incidents, Two Different Outcomes
Murillo fired Nottingham Forest into the lead from a poorly defended corner, but the focus immediately shifted to Forest's Dan Ndoye. Ndoye was standing in an offside position directly in front of Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Becker.
This scenario was strikingly similar to the incident on 13 days earlier at the Etihad Stadium. There, Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk thought he had scored a crucial equaliser against Manchester City, only for VAR to disallow it. The reason given was that Andy Robertson, also in an offside position, was deemed to have impacted the play, despite not being in the direct eyeline of City's keeper, Gianluigi Donnarumma.
Following that game, Liverpool lodged a complaint with the PGMOL, the referees' body. Its chief, Howard Webb, later stated that the VAR's decision to chalk off Van Dijk's goal was "not unreasonable".
Explaining the Inconsistency
Despite the clear sense of déjà vu at Anfield, VAR official on this occasion took no action to disallow Murillo's opener. The inconsistency was addressed by former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports' Ref Watch.
Gallagher justified the starkly different outcome by pointing to a key distinction. "The difference is Andy Robertson moves. He moves to the ball," Gallagher argued. He emphasised the subjective nature of such calls, stating, "we are at the behest of the officials on the day" because the "grey area for this kind of incident is too wide".
He further elaborated on the challenge of balancing correctness with consistency, remarking, "You ask for consistency and to get the decision right, but you can't have both. If you want consistency, every goal like this would be disallowed." Gallagher suggested that officials had perhaps learned from the previous week's fallout, concluding, "They have actually recognised and thought that in this situation the more acceptable situation is a goal."
This was not an isolated incident on the weekend. A similar issue occurred in the North London derby, where Eberechi Eze's goal for Tottenham was allowed to stand despite offside Arsenal players being in the direct eyeline of Spurs goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario.
Former footballer Jay Bothroyd, also on Ref Watch, labelled that decision as "probably the worst". He stated unequivocally, "They are directly in the keeper's eyeline... When I saw that, straight away I said that would be offside. That is the most obvious one."
The debate surrounding the application of the offside rule and VAR's role in interpreting these fine margins continues to be a major talking point in the Premier League, leaving clubs and fans alike frustrated by a perceived lack of clarity.
