Liverpool intends to ‘consider a number of options’ in reaction to the PGMOL’s apology for failing to reverse the decision to erroneously disallow Luis Diaz’s first goal against Tottenham on Saturday. This is in response to the fact that the PGMOL failed to overturn the decision to wrongfully disallow Luis Diaz’s opening goal. This past weekend, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was once again the subject of much attention due to the drama that surrounded Liverpool’s match versus Tottenham.

In spite of the fact that Liverpool had two players sent off, the goal scored by Diaz in the first half that was disallowed was the subject of much discussion. Replays appeared to demonstrate without a doubt that Diaz was onside when he scored the game’s first goal, which had first been disallowed due to an offside call.

In spite of the visual evidence, the VAR was unable to overturn the decision, and no clear boundaries were established to assess whether or not the goal should be allowed to remain. PGMOL later issued a contrite apology after the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Liverpool’s 2-1 loss, blaming significant human error’ for the loss.

It was later revealed that the VAR officials for the game believed the goal had been given by the on-field crew, and their speedy ‘check complete’ reply was for that, rather than for the offside call, which was a big error in communication on their part. After that, the PGMOL decided to bench Darren England and Dan Cook for the rest of the games that were scheduled for the weekend.

But it is very evident that Liverpool do not consider PGMOL’s apologies and their actions to England and Cook to be sufficient in any way. The following is an excerpt from their statement: “We fully accept the pressures that match officials work under; however, these pressures are supposed to be alleviated, not exacerbated, by the existence and implementation of VAR.”

“It is therefore unacceptable that adequate time was not provided in order to enable the appropriate decision to be made, and that there was no further intervention. The fact that these failures have previously been labeled as “significant human error” is another undesirable aspect of the situation. Any and all outcomes should only be determined by the review, which should be carried out in complete transparency.