The VAR Review: Why Van Dijk’s goal was ruled out for offside

Liverpool beat Chelsea 1-0 after extra time in the Carabao Cup final. Virgil van Dijk won the match in the final moments of the extra 30 minutes, but he could have done it on the hour mark without VAR intervention.

Here's why the goal was disallowed for offside at Wembley.

– How VAR decisions affected each Prem club in 2023-24
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate Guide

Possible offside: Endo on Van Dijk's goal

What happened: Virgil van Dijk thought he had given Liverpool the lead in the 60th minute when he headed home Andy Robertson's free-kick. But as the players celebrated, a review was underway for subjective offside and referee Chris Kavanagh was sent to the pitchside screen by VAR, John Brooks.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR Review: They say lightning never strikes twice… unless you're Liverpool and you're playing Chelsea in the Carabao Cup final.

Two years ago, Liverpool thought they had taken the lead at Wembley when Joël Matip headed home in the 67th minute, but VAR intervened after identifying Van Dijk had blocked Reece James and prevented him from launching a challenge .

So for 2022, also read 2024.

This is not a fault of Endo; in fact, he would not be penalized if he were in the game. This is simply hindering an opponent, which has a lower threshold than a foul.

This type of blocking move happens all the time on free kicks in the Premier League, but there are two key considerations: is the player offside and, if so, did he prevent an opponent from get involved in the game? In the vast majority of cases, if the blocking player is offside, they are not stopping a player who has the opportunity to fight for the ball – so VAR will not be involved. And, of course, in most cases a goal is not scored, so VAR is not in the business of examining a similar block from an offside position.

The law states: “If a player who leaves or is in an offside position obstructs an opponent and hinders the opponent's movement towards the ball, it is an offside offense if he has an impact on the player's ability. opponent to play or challenge for the ball.

When Robertson took the free kick, Wataru Endo was in an offside position. As the ball entered the box, Endo blocked Levi Colwill. VAR ruled that Endo was preventing the Chelsea defender from being able to run into the drop zone and potentially make a challenge. This is the area Colwill would expect to attack and there would have been a clear channel he could run into.

The law does not require Colwill to win the ball, only that his ability to contest it has been affected.

Much like the VAR intervention to award Newcastle United a penalty for a shirt tug following Fabian Schär's offside against AFC Bournemouth last weekend, it was the right decision, but many will who will think that it is a question of re-refereeing a match, of getting involved when that was the case. It was not clear that there was a possible violation.

He is penalized a little more often than you might think. Indeed, in October, Brentford thought they had scored against Burnley when Bryan Mbeumo took a free-kick, he was helped across the box by Nathan Collins and headed in by Neal Maupay.

But Kristoffer Ajer, who was offside, was penalized for holding on to Lyle Foster when the free-kick fell to Collins.

Red card possible: Caicedo challenge at Gravenberch

What happened: Ryan Gravenberch had the ball near the sideline in the 24th minute. He released the ball but was then caught by Moisés Caicedo. Referee Kavanagh allowed play to continue but took no action when play was stopped so the Liverpool player could seek treatment. Was there reason to request a VAR review for a red card?

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR Review: Challenges when a player is behind an opponent naturally attract a lot of attention, and this is especially true if there is no warning and/or the opposing player has to leave injured.

Caicedo probably should have been warned, but there was no excessive force or suggestion that the nature of the challenge endangered Gravenberch's safety. The fact that the Dutch international had to go out injured would not be a consideration for VAR, who is not able to inform the referee that he missed a yellow card.

The injury was the result of the challenge, but more importantly not the nature of the challenge.

Referee Kavanagh had not seen the incident correctly and asked VAR what had happened to Gravenberch, so wouldn't that in itself constitute a case of review for a missed incident? The VAR has yet to judge that this merits a red card, they won't send a referee to the monitor just because they may not have seen it.

Much has been made of VAR looking for the buckle of an ankle as evidence of excessive force, to the extent that this has given rise to the expectation that this means it should always result in a red card. Yet this was only one of many factors that a VAR will take into account when judging a challenge, others include, but are not limited to, the speed at which a player engages in the challenge, the height of contact, if performed with a straight leg and if it leads with visible studs. Like any subjective decision, it is a matter of judgment.

There have been a number of comparable challenges this season, none of which led to VAR intervention for a red card, and all of these decisions were deemed correct by the Independent Key Match Incidents Panel. the Premier League – including AFC Bournemouth's Justin Kluivert's tackle on Luis Díaz last month.