Webb doubles down on Liverpool disallowed goal being the right call as he dismisses comparison to similar ruling for City.
Webb defends VAR ruling out Liverpool equaliser against Manchester City.
Although he refrained from endorsing the contentious ruling, Howard Webb stated that referees did not act irrationally in denying Liverpool an equaliser against Manchester City last weekend.
After Andy Robertson was ruled to have impacted City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma while standing in an offside position, referee Chris Kavanagh disallowed Virgil van Dijk’s header, and video assistant Michael Oliver did not reverse the decision.
Following the game, Liverpool wrote to Webb’s PGMO organisation to contest the call as it was heavily condemned.
The call was widely criticised after the game, with Liverpool subsequently writing to Webb’s PGMO organisation to challenge the decision.
Michael Owen, the host of Referees Mic’d Up, a regular TV discussion of officials’ previous rulings, challenged Webb while he was speaking. The former Liverpool player said that he was “strongly of the opinion” that the goal should have stood.
In analysing the referees’ reasoning, Webb acknowledged that “only Donnarumma truly knows if he was impacted by this,” but he maintained that there was sufficient contributing evidence to support Kavanagh’s decision, with Robertson’s ducking out of the way of the ball being a crucial move.
“It’s not unreasonable to understand why they would form that conclusion [of disallowing the goal] when the player is so close to the goalkeeper, the ball’s coming right towards him, and [Robertson] has to duck to get out of the way of the ball,” Webb said. “They form the conclusion that it impacts Donnarumma’s ability just to dive towards the ball and make that save.”
Webb said: “That action could still cause hesitation from the goalkeeper. Goalkeepers work from reactions that make it possible to pull out some incredible saves. And that’s the judgment formed on the field.” Oliver could have overturned Kavanagh’s call only had he thought the referee had made a “clear and obvious” error.