I can’t show it, but I read elsewhere that Kavanaugh was not holding up play, but waved to take the kick. Video confirmation would be great.
If true, there does remain the question of whether or not he should have made it ceremonial once it was clear everyone was holding up for a player who lost his boot who was inside 10 yards. But that "should" question is a step or two removed from whether he "must" in the event he was the one who asked Newcastle to wait.
What justification would he have to ask them to wait? This feels like it falls under the same status as a team choosing to put the ball in touch for an injury and likewise that the other team will give the ball back. Those are player decisions which, if it goes wrong, the referee can't really do much about.
I'd have to be able to see the whole sequence in full to give an opinion on the merits of whether he should OR if any good real-world justification existed based on how it unfolded. But the power is inherent. We hold up free kicks all the time for things that turn out to be nothing. From a potential substitution that wasn't really a substitution at higher levels to a younger sibling running on the field at lower levels. In this case, a player has lost equipment and is within 10 yards of the restart. You can imagine some very benign scenarios where he says "hey guys, hold up, let's wait for my whistle" particularly when the kicking team is holding up anyway. On the contrary, you can also imagine scenarios where the player lost his boot somewhere else and didn't have to be within 10 yards of the restart to fix it, so he's guilty of a little gamesmanship and really doesn't warrant accommodation. The actual facts matter here relative to the should, I think. But I don't think there's any doubt that he or any other referee can always say "hey guys, hold up a second" for almost any reason you can think of.
I think England might be the only place today where Van Dijk's goal gets annulled. Robertson is clearly in an offside position. He ducks to avoid the ball. But at no point is he in Donnarumma's line of sight and it was physically impossible for Donnarumma to reach the ball anyway (he was at full stretch and reacted at the header). So AR puts the flag up late after conversation with Kavanagh. It think that's the first issue. In most places today, with this level of doubt, I think the team defaults to goal and then let's VAR intervene if they must. Second, in England you then have the "referee's call" deference, so the VAR team apparently doesn't think through the practical aspects here. They just see the clear position and, to them, it's a justifiable call. If this gets given on-field in MLS, I think there's a very good chance it's overturend. If you step back and look at the situation as a whole, it's very hard to say Robertson is guilty of a punishable offside offence. Remove him from the play and nothing different happens.
PGMOL verdict is he "made an obvious action that impacted the goalkeeper". Virgil Van Dijk's potential equalizer is DISALLOWED. Andrew Robertson was deemed to have interfered with the goalkeeper from an offside position. pic.twitter.com/yUkYaiCWY6— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) November 9, 2025
Right. And the view from inside the goal should be exculpatory. That’s simply not true. But because there was an action and because he was in an offside position, England defaults to an affirmative call.
For those with YouTube TV or any other platform where they can look, Rogers' yellow card for Villa at 13' is well worth the look. He commits a foul outside his own attacking penalty area as play starts to go the other way. Brooks plays advantage. Great. Ends up with a corner kick at the other end. Caution issued. Seems okay; I think the AR gave the referee the misconduct, for what it's worth. Except it's a really bad challenge. 100% red in UEFA now because of the ankle buckling (and, I know, I railed against results-based officiating during the week; this was different, though... Bournemouth clearly in possession and Rogers reaches/lunges from the side/back and doesn't come anywhere near the ball). I genuinely don't know how it wasn't sent down other than an argument that "no one really noticed" on-field. To make things worse, Brooks makes Evanilson go off the field after treatment and not participate in the corner. He probably was treated for nearly a full minute (beckon wasn't until 12:45, treatment finished up at 13:45), but Brooks appeared to already be telling Evanilson around 13:30 he couldn't stay. Just bizarre stuff. What's the point here? The law was changed so that players who were victims of bad fouls didn't miss out on play, yet England has some weird fetish about making players go off the pitch still.
Was that the exact language that PGMOL used? Can you share the source for that (not suggesting it’s false, I’m just curious)? Because that language is not correct per the Laws of the Game. It has to be either an obvious action that impacts on an opponent’s ability to play the ball, or a clear attempt to play a ball which is close that impacts on an opponent. You can’t take half of one play half of the other to make your own Law up. If that’s really coming straight from a PGMOL spokesperson, that’s pretty bad.
I may be in a minority on the OS, but I’m not disturbed by it.the OSP players role in the whole sequence has been to mess with the keeper. And he ends up being in OSP when the shot is taken, is right in front of the GK, and moves in a way that could be distracting. ( I wonder if PGMOL has given instructions in this scenario, similar to the deliberate OSP on FKs that doubt should be resolved in favor of OS.) I do think the two similar bullets make this a bit mushy, and agree PGMOL’s apparent response is mushy. But both what PGMOL seems to have said and even what @StarTime OSTs leave out a key word: clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball The word clearly is in the obvious action impact, not the attempt. Many may recall this being added after a dummy by an attacker froze a defender. The R at the time punished for OS, though nothing in Law 11 art the time actually supported it. And, I believe, “clearly” impacts was there to make sure it was something with actual impact. And I agree, despite what I wrote above, that it is very hard to conclude that the OSP players ducking clearly impacted the ability of the GK to play the ball.
The NBC studio host appeared to repeat a PGMOL statement verbatim, my memory may have left out a word. I repeated what the host said with 90-100% accuracy. #MCILIV – 38’ The referee’s call of offside and no goal to Liverpool was checked and confirmed by VAR – with Robertson in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper.— Premier League Match Centre (@PLMatchCentre) November 9, 2025
Since I mentioned this elsewhere, English FA orders a replay of a FA Vase match after refs allow the goalkeeper to be selected as the "reduce to equate" player eliminated for the shootout but still allow him in net. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c1d04yyxvv5o
BBC story with extensive comments from Webb that the OS call was not unreasonable, noting it is a subjective decision and the VAR nonintervention was proper because the call was not clearly erroneous. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp8er90j0veo
The explanation of why the Silva incident against Wolves last year was different is hilarious dissembling.
But Silva "moved away from the flight of the ball." Robertson "ducked away from the flight of the ball." You see. They are totally different. Totally.
In all seriousness, one of the facts that is being accepted here, which I really question is the argument "Robertson had to duck to get out of the way." Two things on that... If he had to duck, then what else was he supposed to do? Let it hit him? At that point, essentially what's being said is that Robertson is guilty of offside by being in his position because there was no way for him to make himself onside. Seems to undermine the spirit of the law. But more to the point, I just don't think he did have to duck. I think if you watch the flight of that ball, it wasn't actually going to hit him. Players are extra careful to make sure the ball doesn't hit them in those situations. Robertson took the safe route and ducked. Is the implication from Webb and others that if he stood still and let it pass his head by, say, six inches, the goal should stand? They are hanging their proverbial hats on this ducking movement being an "obvious action."
I'm on the side of offside here ... for me, too close to the GK. GK has to prepare for him heading the ball - I think that's enough to be "impacting." I appreciate others feel differently. In my normal grassroots U14 match if you're that close to the GK and ball I believe it's offside.
On a different note, it was interesting to hear ARs give positive confirmation like "he's good" ... debate in the other thread if it's necessary or if you should only chime in on comms for offside. I like hearing from the ARs the player is on.
See, I'd encourage you to think about it from the opposite angle. If this exact (or very similar) play happened and a U14 put a header in ther far corner that the goalkeeper was absolutely never going to reach, I think it would be an travesty to disallow that goal from a 13-year old on a strict reading of Law 11. That kid will remember that goal for a lifetime; you'll forget the offside call next week. At least at the professional level, a semi-serious person might make a case that Donnarumma could save this if not for Robertson's presence (don't get me wrong, I still think that person would be wrong; but when we're talking about a world-class and likely easily top 10 goalkeeper in the world, at least you can have the debate). At the grassroots level, I really hope we are calibrating a little more to the reality on the field and the skill of the participants, rather than what an individual referee thinks is a strict reading of Law 11.