► Subscribe to Sky Sports News: http://bit.ly/SkySportsNewsSub
► Watch Sky Sports: https://bit.ly/BuySkySports
Dermot Gallagher and Jay Bothroyd debate the decision to rule out Virgil van Dijk’s header against Man City.
#SkySportsNews #SkySports #premierleague
► For the latest developments on this story: https://qrcode.skysports.com/skysports/topstories
► For the latest transfer news: https://qrcode.skysports.com/skysports/TransferCentre
More from Sky Sports on YouTube:
► Sky Sports: http://bit.ly/SkySportsSub
► Sky Sports Boxing: http://bit.ly/SSBoxingSub
► Sky Sports Cricket: http://bit.ly/SubscribeSkyCricket
► Sky Sports Darts: https://bit.ly/SubSkySportsDarts
► Sky Sports Football: http://bit.ly/SSFootballSub
► Sky Sports F1: http://bit.ly/SubscribeSkyF1
► Sky Sports Golf: https://bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsGolf
► Sky Sports Premier League: https://bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsPL
► Sky Sports Retro: http://bit.ly/SkySportsRetroSub
► Sky Sports WSL: https://bit.ly/SubscribeSkySportsWSL
► TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@skysportsnews
► X: https://x.com/SkySportsNews
► Website: https://www.skysports.com
► To enquire about licensing Sky Sports content, you can find out more here: https://www.skysports.com/more-sports/news/31754/11434270/license-sky-sports-footage
gents. Hi there. There is only I think one place to start, isn’t there really? It’s at the Etiad. Man City I mean dismantled the Champions Liverpool with that comprehensive 3-0 win. But could it have been different? Should it have been different if Veran Dijk’s header hasn’t been ruled out in the first half with the score at 1 nil. Look Derma, we’re going to get straight into with you. Is this a subjective decision or that gray area for you? I think both, Haley. I think it is subjective without doubt and it is a gray area because it’s all about the interpretation and as we’ve seen we were just talking off screen Jay and I and we see things slightly different don’t we? Everybody sees things slightly different and that’s why you can throw up a decision from last year or earlier in the season and go well you know they made a slightly different decision. It’s because we see things slightly differently. I don’t think there hard and fast rules. What do you think Jay? I think they should have been given a goal. If you look at it here, Van Dijk’s gone up. He’s headed the ball. When you look at Donnaruma, he’s he is coming across slightly to his right, but then he pivots to the left. So that means he can see where the ball is going. Yes, Robinson has ducked. But if anything, the person that’s in his ey line more would be Dou more than Robinson. And you know by if I don’t know if you can read the rule but it was something along the lines of the player making an action. Mhm. A player making an action in my opinion is if he moves towards the ball or he tries to make contact with the ball. Robertson there has just ducked. So to me he’s made no action or effort to try and deflect the ball or get his head on it or what not. He’s just got himself out the way of the ball. Um so that’s why I think it should have been given and I think that was a poor decision. Yeah. Look, we’ll look specifically at the rules and in just a moment go through it. But look, this is what Andy Robertson made of the call. I can’t really comment on it. I think we’ll let other people do that, but for me it looked as, you know, a duck out the way, but I don’t think the keeper is in any ey line to me and that’s the rules we get told at the start of the season. So, it’s a little bit of a difficult one. Um, so I think that that should have stood. Okay. So right, these are the rules. Then this is what we want to clarify. So Dermit, um, we’ve got the first bullet point, clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision. I draw your attention to the fourth bullet point, making an obvious action, which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. What’s in play here? Uh, also three, isn’t it? where he’s close close to the opponent and I think that’s got to bear in mind. We saw at Everton a few weeks ago, Jack Greish corner comes across, Jake O’Brien heads it on and Jack Greish is stood next to Vicario and I think this is similar in so much as Robertson’s if you look behind the goal when Van Djk heads the ball Robertson is within 2 feet of the goalkeeper. So his presence impact this is the problem. It’s there isn’t it’s not an exact science. There isn’t somebody to go that’s definitely this that’s definitely this. But I mean one thing I would say Bernardo Silva last season had the same thing and a goal got given. I think it was with the same referee as well. So again I mean it’s an interpretation but it’s the same referee. When I look at this yes he is close to him. So he might see him in his peripheral vision. He might understand that he is there but obviously first and foremost Donnaruma is focused on the ball. because he needs to know exactly where the ball is going. Now, there’s no hesitation from Donnaruma, as in where is it going. So, the fact that he hasn’t hesitated at all and he’s dived away, you know, he’s probably a hand away from the ball. Um, he’s dived, he hasn’t gone, you know, higher or lower, it’s actually in line with where the ball enters the net. Tells me it wasn’t offside. And Robinson, he he’s not, he’s ducked out the way, he’s ducked. the person that is more in his ey line that would have um hindered him more in terms of vision would have been Douku cuz Dou was standing right ahead of him. So that’s why I think it should have been a goal and I think it’s a poor decision but like you said D it’s an interpretation and I think they need to you know clamp down on the rules how to make it more clear. Yeah, that’s that that was my start point, wasn’t it? Is that we have this gray area. We have this interpretation. Um just to clear one thing up. Um I don’t think I’m not trying to defend Chris Kavanaaugh, but I don’t think you should hang him back to dry because he didn’t make that decision yesterday. The decision was made by the assistant. The one at Wolves, he made the decision because he was sent to the monitor yesterday. He wasn’t. So it is slightly different in that. Bear in mind this was an onfield decision. The onfield decision was no goal. So the V looks and the VR says, “Is Robertson in an offside position?” Yes. Is he impacting on the goalkeeper? They obviously felt yes because he was close. And I think that’s why people are going, “Well, it should be this. It should be this.” At the moment, it’s not, is it? At the moment, it’s it’s left to interpretation. Is that why? But but the VAR could have said, “Why don’t you go and look at the screen at this one?” is the reason why they didn’t do that because they’re like, “Well, we don’t know. So, we’re just going to go with your decision on this one.” No. The the See, the VAR’s not there to judge it. It’s not a panacea. It’s not going to say, “You’ve got this right, Jay. You’ve got this wrong.” Surely that’s what V’s for, isn’t it? No, it’s not. It’s It’s not. That’s a complete myth. It’s there. Is it a clear and obvious error? Well, when you go through it stage by stage, is Robertson an offside position? Yes. Not necessarily an offense, but he is an offside position. Is he? It’s not It’s not an offense, is it? No, that’s what I said. It’s not an offense, but he’s in an offside position. Yes. Point one. Point two is, is he close to the goalkeeper and possibly impacting him? Well, he is, but he’s not impacting him, though. Well, the assistant felt he was and the v the video shows that he is in that position, but that’s interpretation, isn’t it? If he’s impacting him. Exactly. And if the VAR says you have to go and look at this, what you’re doing, you’re re-refereeing because you’re saying but VA do that every week. V do that all the time. Var gets Why is this any different? Because they didn’t think it was a clear and obvious error. But then surely surely you should say to him, go to the camera to see if you think you’ve got this wrong. You’re not listening. You’re not listening. He can only be sent to the screen if it’s a clear and opposite error or if it’s a subjective offside which they have to go through. The on the onfield decision was no goal. Yeah, I understand that. Well, what can you do? The onfield decision can be backed up by the video, can’t it? He is an offside position. He is close to goalkeeper. So, they say he’s impacted. Yeah, but but they’re not impacted. Was it again? Sorry. There the term they used the fourth one. Um it was um impact an opponent uh making an obvious action with which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play. Where is where is the action that he’s made that’s impacted anything? That’s what I want to know. Like there is no action and action would be throwing a foot at the ball or throwing your head at the ball. He has ducked. There is absolutely no action there that says he is interfering with play. Well, we’ve gone through that. What’s that? What’s the action? What is the What is the action that they’ve they’ve gone with there? Can Can you tell me that? I’ve told you. I’ve told you. I’ve told you. He’s in that proximity. He’s moved away from the ball to clear the ball. And that’s my point. If he’s moving away from the ball, it’s not an action. If he was moving towards the ball, if he made an action toward the ball to try and flick it, then I could understand the fact that he’s just moved out the way. That’s not an action. But he’s moved out the way to clear the ball. So his impact on the goal that was the decision I wait the decision was disallowed on on field and that’s what I’m explaining to you. You can ask me till 12:00 when we go off air. The fact that the fact that he’s moved out the way which means Donnaruma’s still got full vision of the ball. So he’s moved. So Donnaruma can like he’s got a better chance of saving it. The fact that he’s moved he he has but if he deflects it the other way then he’s got no chance. He has, but that ball has moved 10 yards between before he’s moved out the way. That that’s I can only tell you what I’ve seen, what the law is, and what they’ve come up with. I mean, and bearing in mind as well, let’s take this into consideration, Donna Room is 6’7. Robinson is probably what, 5’8. So, he can see he can see and look, he’s ahead of he’s above everyone, right? So, he can see the ball coming. And I just don’t see if the ball was coming from this angle and he’s standing behind then I would say I completely understand that. But the fact that he’s standing like I don’t even remember from my screen. Sorry D. Can I use you? The fact that he’s standing there and the ball’s coming this way. I don’t understand how he would be impacting. He’s aware that he’s there but he definitely wouldn’t be impacting him. The only time he would impact him if he makes an action towards the ball. Sorry D man you there. That’s fine. That’s fine. Let’s let’s just leave it there with you guys for now. Let’s move on to what Jamie Carrager made of it yesterday. This is what he thinks. We’ve got to keep an eye on Donna Ruma here and where he shifts his weight. Now, right now, if he’s going to dive, you say, “Okay, Andy Robertson is in his way.” But we’re going to try and move this on really, really slowly. Donnaruma’s weight is going to his right. He thinks the header for Van Djk is going to go to his right. Look at his foot. You see he’s moving actually the opposite way. His foot is now planted now exactly the time the ball goes over Andy Robertson’s head. So that is the true moment we should be looking at. Not when it leaves Van Dijk’s head when it goes over Andy Robertson’s head and he makes an action to get out of the way of the ball. Does he have a point there then Dermit? I think everybody has a point, Haley, because everybody sees it slightly differently. And that’s what So you asked me at the start, is it subjective? Is it a gray area? And I said both. And I think that’s the problem. There is no hard and fast. There isn’t almost a line that you go that’s this, that’s this. It’s left to interpretation because the law isn’t tight
36 Comments
Jay you are the man the big difference between you and Dermot is you played the game at the highest level, he reffed the game . You couldn't blow hot and cold weekly but Dermot could.
Would have made no difference to the result anyway. Scousers equalised against Utd and lost. But there needs to be consistency as there isn't any
It was right call the frustrations are inconsistency in how this gets called but its 100% correct to diss allow the goal
Great for TV, awful for English football.
Anyone in the 6 yd box offside should be called offside.simple rule change.
It's so painful to watch, how is football and formula 1 like this in the year 2000 😂
My guy. Calling things out, well done mate, good neutral opinion..shame on you officials.. dodgy fuxkers
The PGMOL leave a grey area for a reason. So they can influence a game without being guilty of match-fixing…. They leave the terms open for subjection, like; "intentional", "excessive", "serious" and even "clear and obvious." Every referee has a different interpretation of all of the rules. But if any supporter of any Premier League club honestly thinks that David Coote was an anomaly and every current ref is totally unbiased….. then you're bonkers. The referees favour certain clubs and dislike certain clubs and as a result of the total assumption of fairness, are protected against their obviously biased performances. Because let's face it, an official apology and a few weeks demotion is enough to sweep anything under the carpet. For anything to be done, all the fans have to unite and after the next week's games, I don't think that is ever gonna happen.
Week after week this guy lies through his teeth to protect his friends. He could be a labour politician. 😂😂😂
VAR should be taken out the game , there basically ruining football , we have people who don't play football determining the outcome of football matches , crazy
VAR, PGMOL are all ways of getting there mates in on the bag , cause they have not made the game better.
This dude is a waste of airtime…stop bringing him here, pls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone who plays goalkeeper should understand this. Donnarumma didn't dive all the way to the ball, because he was reading the possibility of Robertson deflecting or playing the ball. So Don had to worry about the ball deflecting to another direction as well. Robertson dodging and made the ball went into that direction was "an action" that affect the direction of the ball. If he didn't dodge, the ball would've hit him instead of going in, and he would be ruled offside. Also, if he wasn't there, Donnarumma would've dived all the way to the ball and saved it.
Dermot should be bold enough to submit " Yes it was a mistake and the goal should have been stood". I must admit here that City were the better team then, but who knows, with the equaliser, the game dimensions could have/would have changed altogether
There's no explanation…it is offside.
was he in an offside position before van dijk headed the ball? We all know Rob's presence was a distraction. But they have allowed that in the past too
All the excuses for man city is just funny funny frfr😂
Goal should have stood. Robertson does not touch the ball and is not obstructing vision of the keeper.
Dermot is talking absolute sh*t
Dont bother Jay butty,interpretation changes everyweek to suit narrative and agenda
Jay spoofing again, if you know you know 😂
My understanding is that Robertson impacted the game from an offside position. Should be disallowed.
Doesn't need to touch the ball or block someones vision to impact.
But ultimately VAR doesn't contribute get rid of it. Offside rule unnecessary, get rid of it.
Dermot is rubbish.
Nah, Jay just isn’t intelligent enough to
Jay always makes more sense than Dermot
Was it an on field decison. The var room were screaming in the refs ear the second the ball hit the back of the net. They basically just told him it was offside.
How good would it be if the ex ref didn’t know the decision given on field and by VAR. Watch the clip and give their decision without knowing what the ref on field gave… only way to avoid all this bull dancing around to protect the poor decision being made.
Clear and obvious error is such a load of crap… “what can we do” maybe get the decisions correct.
Man City beat us up, and deserved to beat us, but who knows what would have happened if the game went to 1-1.
Suck the referee
What I feel when Robinson was standing on the trajectory of that ball, it was hard to judge where it will go. it was never the view of the ball to donnarumma but how it could have been influenced after Robinson presence if he would have got the ball, the outcome have be different. Surely it’s hard to judge at the time if this still is a matter of debate after a week.
Nobody wants to hear from referees or ex- referees. They are not what people pay money for to see or hear from . VAR is a joke , its supposed to be used for the clear and obvious, yet it takes hours for the simpletons to make a decision. Everyone else watching on tv, can see dozens of replays from every angle yet this isn't used for VAR . The difference nowadays with referee's is that they are cheats , they don't make honest mistakes, they cheat pure and simple , Howard Webb is in charge ffs , the most corrupt referee ever . Its about time to get rid of VAR , these soap star referee's and go back to the good old days , when referee's made honest decisions, rightly or wrongly, and save us from their constant lies . I'd rather lose from some ref making a honest mistake than a corrupt ref cheating ….but then again its been corrupt since the Premiership was formed
Something that is important, but it wasn't really discussed in this debate, was the importance of what the on-field decision was. If the on-field decision was "goal", there is a stronger possibility that the referee is called to the monitor to review it.
VAR is to be used for obvious errors and of course to prevent obvious errors, and it should not be used to re-referee the incident. But as the on-field decision was "no goal, offside", the VAR did not see an obvious error being committed. OBVIOUS is the key word here.
When you review the 4 points of the law as should in this video then the final part is where this subjective aspect comes in. I don't want to sit on the fence, so I will say that I feel the goal should be allowed as the law does not clearly support the reason for disallowing it. But with that in mind, could there be the argument that the goalkeeper did not dive in a more committed manner, because he thought that there is a chance that Robertson may try to flick the ball on? And that's where we end in this area of doubt.
I don't believe the setup of VAR in the English system is good enough, compared to other leading leagues in Europe and it's being made far more complicated than it needs to be. But ultimately, regardless of the technology in the game, the players, coaches and referees are all human. Mistakes will be made and players make big mistakes every game. I support Liverpool, but the club should not publicly point to the referees (not that they have) and say that the referee made a big mistake, unless they are going to hold themselves (players) accountable for their mistakes too. This is the ugly side of football. It's redirecting blame as an excuse for a defeat or a reason why a team did not win.
Like an other comment here.The VAR is baffling. Why are they there for ?
Gallagher is a Complete Joke In The World He Lives In Not A Single Referee Has Ever Got A decision wrong.
The rules are not fit for purpose. We have to get to the point where if a games rules are this subjective, we're not all playing the same game.
Bald fraud defending bald fraud for a team managed by bald fraud to defeat a bald fraud
Everyone knows Micheal Oliver is a UAE/ City owner sell out!