Former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg believes the officials made one erroneous call during Liverpool’s 2-0 win over Burnley.

Liverpool’s victory was precarious until Diogo Jota’s late goal added to Darwin Nez’s early strike, owing primarily to the disqualification of two visitors’ goals. The first goal was scored by Cody Gakpo before the half, but it was disallowed by referee Paul Tierney for what he perceived as a foul by Nez on Charlie Taylor. According to the ECHO, VAR upheld the judgment because there was insufficient evidence to overturn it, despite the fact that playback demonstrated little contact from the Reds’ number nine.

Clattenburg remarked after the game, when watching it on Amazon Prime, that Tierney, who he thought did a good job overall, got this wrong.

“See, I thought Paul Tierney refereed this game really well, he played a wonderful advantage for Liverpool’s second goal but this one I don’t agree with,” he said. “Look at the Burnley defender’s reaction — he puts his hands to his head.” He’s moved in front of Nez, and when I look at it from different angles, I don’t see any contact from Nez, so I don’t consider it a foul.

“Once Paul Tierney gives it — and this is why there are so many arguments about whether or not the VAR is doing his job — this is such a subjective call.” He made the decision on the pitch, and the VAR said, ‘You know what? There isn’t enough to prevent it’.

“I disagree; I believe the best decision would have been to play on and let the goal stand.” There isn’t enough contact for me to call a foul.”

Another score that was ruled out by the referee from the Euro 2016 final was also investigated. Harvey Elliott had graded it, and it had first passed Tierney’s inspection. VAR Simon Hooper, on the other hand, urged him to look at it again on the pitchside monitor. He then determined that Mohamed Salah had obstructed the goalkeeper’s view from an offside position.

There was additional debate about this because Salah had been pushed offside, and Elliott’s shot was too powerful for goalkeeper James Trafford, who was moving the opposite way, to stop. Clattenburg, on the other hand, could see why this judgment was made because it is the referee’s role to implement the regulations as they are, not to decide how goalkeepers should move.

“I can see it from both sides,” he says. “The officials are following the rules of the game exactly as written — was Mo Salah in an offside position?” Yes. Was he intentionally shoved offside? Yes. Was that enough to warrant a penalty? No. He is, in fact, in an offside position. Is he on the goalkeeper’s line when Elliott strikes the ball? Yes.

“You could argue that the goalkeeper is going in one direction. Is he attempting to move one way in order to save the ball? We’re not goalkeepers, therefore we don’t know. Referees are just enforcing the rules of the game as they are written.

“We consider the distance as well. Mo Salah is in the six-yard box, very close to Trafford, the goalkeeper. If Mo Salah was five or ten meters higher up, Trafford would have a chance to stop the ball, but as the ball is struck, there is an argument that Trafford is only going one way. Would he have been able to preserve it? That is not the referee’s decision; it is the result of applying the laws as they are written.

“Was Mo Salah playing offside?” Yes. Was he in the field of view? Yes, I understand why it was rejected. “The easiest decision for the referee to make once he’s gone to the screen, in my opinion, is to disallow it.”

He curiously noted that if Elliott had directed his strike to the left side of the goal instead of the right, Liverpool could have doubled their lead considerably earlier in the game.

“I don’t think it would have been an issue if it had gone in the other side [of the goal], because Salah has blocked that side where the ball has gone and doesn’t give him a chance to save it.” We don’t want to be predicting what the goalkeeper will do next since we’re just refs enforcing the rules of the game. Even if we disagree with them, the referees apply the rules as they are now written.”

“If it had flashed into the top corner on the other side it would have been a very different goal because the goalkeeper would certainly have not had a chance to save it.”