Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
Liverpool Echo
Liverpool Echo
Sport
Keifer MacDonald

Every word of expert explanation over Liverpool and Cody Gakpo 'deliberate play' VAR controversy

Cody Gakpo's second half strike against Aston Villa was ruled out because Ezri Konsa's clearance was not deemed as a deliberate attempt to play the ball.

And the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) are set to overlook Liverpool's request for an explanation of the decision, with the referees' governing body instead happy with how on-field referee John Brooks interpreted the rules.

Trailing to Jacob Ramsey's first half strike, the Dutchman thought he had fired the Reds' level with his seventh Premier League goal of the season when he was on hand to capitalise on a defensive mishap from Konsa. However, after initially awarding the goal, Brooks, the on-field referee, was advised to review the decision on the pitchside VAR monitor. After watching numerous replays of the incident, Gakpo's goal was chalked off with Virgil van Dijk's involvement in the move said to have been illegal.

READ MORE: Liverpool have just quietly made change that could fully unleash Darwin Nunez

READ MORE: Liverpool captaincy order is changing after transfer decision and Jurgen Klopp mistake

Van Dijk had initially undertaken an offside position as Trent Alexander-Arnold's cross was swung into the box, which was played across the face of goal by Luis Diaz who was in an onside position. However, as Diaz's pass was cleared by Konsa, it fell to the feet of Van Dijk. The Dutch defender passed the ball to Ibrahima Konate and it quickly found its way to Gakpo, who, after some pinball in the six-yard area, fired past Emi Martinez.

According to ESPN's VAR expert Dale Johnson, however, Gakpo's strike was correctly ruled out due to Konsa's clearance not being deemed as a deliberate action due to the Villa defender not having complete control over his body.

Writing in his weekly Premer League VAR column, Johnson explained the rationale behind the referee's decision at Anfield on Saturday afternoon, explaining: "Was Konsa deliberately trying to play the ball? Yes. Was it a "deliberate play" of the ball by Konsa? Not necessarily.

"It's clumsy wording from the lawmakers, because this is about a player being in control of their actions and the outcome. It doesn't excuse a defensive error, but it does mean an attacker should not be able to benefit if the defender has made a reflex action.

"A "deliberate play" is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: passing the ball to a teammate; or gaining possession of the ball; or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it.)

"The ball came at Konsa from a short distance and was dropping behind him until he attempted to get his foot on the ball, while it came off his leg, just below his knee, to run to Van Dijk.

"Another of the clauses for a "deliberate play" requires Konsa to have "time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control," and it's hard to argue that he did.

"Konsa can't realistically have any kind of control over the destination of the ball when it hits his leg, rather than being played by his boot. The Independent Key Incidents Panel is very unlikely to rule this as a mistake with the ball not coming off the foot."

Johnson continued: "It's correct in law, even if it's one that many people will be unable to get on board with. If the goal had been given, it probably wouldn't have been questioned by anyone other than those with a deep knowledge of this area of the offside law, which has become needlessly complicated in the search for simplicity; it's the kind of decision which wouldn't be helped by hearing the VAR audio from Tony Harrington."

On Monday, the ECHO reported that Liverpool had written to the PGMOL for an explanation as to why Gakpo's goal had been disallowed and also why Villa defender Tyrone Mings had only been shown a yellow card for a reckless, high-footed challenge on the Dutchman.

However, according to the Guardian, the PGMOL will not treat either of the controversial calls by the VAR as an error, with both of the decisions instead only set to be reviewed as part of governing body's Key Match Incidents panel - which is a standard procedure to improve performances of the officials in the English game.

READ NEXT:

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.