The drama surrounding Virgil van Dijk's disallowed goal against Manchester City continues to reverberate among Liverpool fans, with many still grappling with the decision made by referee Chris Kavanagh and his team, including assistant referee Stuart Burt.
At the heart of the controversy is a crucial point that has yet to receive sufficient attention: who actually decided to rule out the goal? The answer lies in an audio transcript from Match Officials Mic'd Up, which reveals that Stuart Burt, the assistant referee, was not only the one who made the initial call but also the main driver behind it.
Burt's assertion that Robertson was "in line of vision" right in front of Donnarumma, with Van Dijk ducking under the ball and close to the goalkeeper, is questionable given his position 90 degrees away from the action. This raises serious doubts about Kavanagh's role as a passive participant in the decision-making process.
Moreover, it was Burt who essentially made the call on Robertson being "in line of vision" and subsequently led to the VAR system intervening with an offside verdict that confirmed the disallowed goal. The fact that Robertson was actually ducking under the ball rather than playing it means that Kavanagh's decision has been effectively overridden by Burt's initial judgment.
The implications of this are profound, particularly considering that determining a clear and obvious error in a non-factual decision requires an exceptionally high threshold, as noted by Howard Webb. From the moment Burt called out Robertson being "in line of vision," there was little room for reversal.
This raises questions about the VAR system's role and effectiveness, especially when it comes to offside decisions made by on-field officials rather than their own direct judgment. Given the complexity of these rules and the challenges in judging lines of sight, there is a need for more transparency around decision-making processes.
The case highlights that relying solely on technology can sometimes mask issues with human interpretation, particularly if those humans are not directly positioned to make informed judgments. It's crucial for football authorities to revisit and refine their processes to ensure fairness and consistency across matches.
While Howard Webb's assertion that the decision was "reasonable" is understandable, it's equally valid to question whether such a judgment can stand when there appears to be an inherent flaw in the way Robertson's offside status was assessed.
At the heart of the controversy is a crucial point that has yet to receive sufficient attention: who actually decided to rule out the goal? The answer lies in an audio transcript from Match Officials Mic'd Up, which reveals that Stuart Burt, the assistant referee, was not only the one who made the initial call but also the main driver behind it.
Burt's assertion that Robertson was "in line of vision" right in front of Donnarumma, with Van Dijk ducking under the ball and close to the goalkeeper, is questionable given his position 90 degrees away from the action. This raises serious doubts about Kavanagh's role as a passive participant in the decision-making process.
Moreover, it was Burt who essentially made the call on Robertson being "in line of vision" and subsequently led to the VAR system intervening with an offside verdict that confirmed the disallowed goal. The fact that Robertson was actually ducking under the ball rather than playing it means that Kavanagh's decision has been effectively overridden by Burt's initial judgment.
The implications of this are profound, particularly considering that determining a clear and obvious error in a non-factual decision requires an exceptionally high threshold, as noted by Howard Webb. From the moment Burt called out Robertson being "in line of vision," there was little room for reversal.
This raises questions about the VAR system's role and effectiveness, especially when it comes to offside decisions made by on-field officials rather than their own direct judgment. Given the complexity of these rules and the challenges in judging lines of sight, there is a need for more transparency around decision-making processes.
The case highlights that relying solely on technology can sometimes mask issues with human interpretation, particularly if those humans are not directly positioned to make informed judgments. It's crucial for football authorities to revisit and refine their processes to ensure fairness and consistency across matches.
While Howard Webb's assertion that the decision was "reasonable" is understandable, it's equally valid to question whether such a judgment can stand when there appears to be an inherent flaw in the way Robertson's offside status was assessed.
it's like they're passing the buck or something. and yeah, kavanagh just kinda stood there while burt did all the work... what even is his role in all this? he's not exactly directing the team 
... like, yeah robertson was definitely in donnarumma's line of sight but the way he said it seems kinda suspicious. i'm not saying kavanagh wasn't trying to make a good call or anything, but if burt is basically overriding his decision then something needs to change 
... and btw, var can only do so much when there's a clear human error involved 
... might be time for some changes in the rules 
. If Stuart Burt was making all those calls and Kavanagh is just sitting back, it feels like a joke 
. I mean, what's the point of having VAR if we're not gonna know who made that initial call? It's like they're just trying to hide something.
. How can we trust his judgment?
.
Now it feels like they're just puppets on strings, with VAR pulling all the strings 
. I guess that's progress or something...
he's 90 degrees away from the action fam 
the fact that burt basically made the call and then var stepped in and confirmed it is wild 
like why r they keepin it a secret from us fans? 
. The fact that Stuart Burt made the initial call and then had it confirmed by the VAR system is super fishy 
. It's one thing to have technology help with accuracy, but when it overrides on-field officials' judgment, something's gotta change 
. The whole thing just feels like a big mess 
. Like, if he wasn't making the call on Robertson being "in line of vision" then the whole VAR thing wouldn't have even kicked in. And honestly, from where I'm sitting (90 degrees away from the action) it doesn't look like Robertson was definitely offside 
it's all about transparency and fairness, you feel? 
he's basically admitted to making the call from 90 degrees away which is just not right 
i think we need to get more transparency around how var decisions are made especially when they're based on what off-field officials see 
kavanagh and burt need to explain themselves better 
. I mean, if Stuart Burt was 90 degrees away from the action and made the call on Robertson being "in line of vision" 
, doesn't that kinda raise some flags? 
. I mean, we need more transparency around decision-making processes, especially with VAR 
.
️
. I mean, Howard Webb said the decision was "reasonable" 
, but is it really? 
.
I mean, if the humans on the field are making mistakes, shouldn't they just own up to it and not rely on technology to back them up? 
.
. Let's hope they do something about it before the next big game 
!
It just doesn't add up - Kavanagh's not even directly involved in the initial call and yet he gets to overrule it with VAR? 
... I think we need to take a closer look at VAR's role and processes - relying solely on tech can sometimes lead to misinterpretation, especially when it comes to offside decisions that require human judgment. We should be looking for more transparency and consistency in these situations 
its all about whose word matters more, kavanaghs or bartts 
. i mean, if burt wasn't directly involved in the initial call, why did kavanagh let him get away with it? 
. maybe a system where var only intervenes after a human official has made their judgment could help prevent something like this from happening again