After Gary Lineker claimed on Match of the Day that Andy Robertson should not have been sent off against Fulham, ESPN VAR expert Dale Johnson and former referee Dermot Gallagher have now made the same argument.
Already a goal down, Andy Robertson was sent off in the 17th minute against Fulham for fouling Harry Wilson and supposedly ‘denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity’ (DOGSO) for the former Red.
This decision has now been disputed by Johnson, a well-known ‘expert’ on football laws and VAR protocols, who thinks “Liverpool will probably be considering an appeal against the one-match ban which rules Robertson out of the Carabao Cup quarter-final against Southampton on Wednesday.”
The incident that saw Robertson sent off came about because of a poor touch from the left-back.
This allowed Harry Wilson to nip in front of the Scotland captain and touch the ball away, Robertson clearly fouling Wilson in the process.
This led to the referee showing a red to the Liverpool man as a result of this apparent denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity.
However, upon review, it is clear that Wilson was highly unlikely to reach the ball after a heavy touch that took the ball into Raul Jimenez’s path.
That the ball fell to Jimenez shouldn’t have been relevant to the decision and the conclusion should only have been based on whether Wilson, himself had a clear goalscoring opportunity.
For ESPN, Johnson wrote: “If Jimenez had found the back of the net, Robertson would only have been booked as a goal was scored.
“As Jimenez missed, DOGSO remains active because the offence belongs to the player (Wilson), rather than Fulham as a collective. So, Liverpool were reduced to 10 men because Jimenez didn’t score…
“There was enough doubt in this situation for a VAR review to downgrade the card to a yellow.”
Giving his overall verdict on the incident, Johnson said:
“A harsh red card for Robertson, as there has to be doubt that Wilson would have a clear goal-scoring opportunity because of his touch.
“That Robertson’s challenge was very clearly a foul and in a central position probably influences opinion on the DOGSO, but the direction of the ball and the presence of Van Dijk made it a tough sell in law.”
Speaking on Sky Sports, former referee Dermot Gallagher voiced a similar opinion to Johnson.
Gallagher pronounced: “I did not think it was a red card at the time, and I still do not. Robertson mis-controls the ball and Wilson nicks the ball. Is he in control of the ball? No.
“Is he going to gain control of the ball? Doubtful as the Liverpool player is going to get there first.
“Is he moving towards goal? No. There are too many variables and the ‘O’ (in DOGSO) stands for obvious.
“A more palatable decision would be a yellow card – if the ref [Tony Harrington] had whistled immediately, I think everybody would have accepted it.”
Gary Lineker had a similar viewpoint
?? “It was just a mess!” @garylineker and Ashley Williams discuss Andy Robertson’s red card for his challenge on Harry Wilson ?#MOTD #BBCFootball pic.twitter.com/bobELLgc8i
— Match of the Day (@BBCMOTD) December 15, 2024
On Saturday night’s edition of Match of the Day, presenter Lineker also came out in opposition to the officials’ decision to show red to Robertson.
The former Everton striker said: “There’s no denial of a goalscoring opportunity because he has the opportunity, which is a red herring.
“They eventually give it because Wilson [who] they think is going to get the ball. Now, there is zero chance that Harry Wilson is going to get on the end of that.”
Pundit Ashley Williams then added: “I’m not sure there’s zero, maybe he gets it.”
Lineker replied: “You’ve seen how hard he (Wilson) hits it, he’s never going to get across there.
“Obviously the decision was on the foul on Wilson, but it’s just a mess. The nuance of the law is a mess on that one.”
Given the evidence, Liverpool would be well within their rights to appeal Robertson’s one-match suspension.
The reality is, though, that this probably won’t happen and if the ruling were to be appealed, it would be unlikely to be overturned as it is deemed a subjective decision.
