Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Premier League / PGMOL · 2023

VAR and Luis Díaz's Wrongly Disallowed Goal

On September 30, 2023, Liverpool's Luis Díaz scored against Tottenham Hotspur, but the goal was flagged offside. The video assistant referee checked, saw that Díaz was onside, but mistakenly told the referee "check complete," confirming the offside decision. Play restarted before the error could be corrected. Liverpool lost 2–1. The referees' body, PGMOL, called it a "significant human error," released the audio and acknowledged "systemic weaknesses." Liverpool said "sporting integrity has been undermined," and manager Jürgen Klopp called for a replay, which the league did not consider. It emerged that the video officials had worked a match in the UAE days earlier. The case raises questions about technology, accountability, finality of results and officials' conflicts.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Díaz's goal is wrongly disallowed; Liverpool lose 2–1.
  2. PGMOL acknowledges a "significant human error."
  3. Liverpool say "sporting integrity has been undermined."
  4. PGMOL releases the VAR audio.
  5. Klopp calls for a replay; the Premier League does not consider one.

The ethical issues

  • Technology and human error.
  • Finality of results versus correcting known mistakes.
  • Transparency: releasing officials' communications.
  • Officials' outside work and fatigue.
  • Trust in officiating.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
LiverpoolA fair result.
TottenhamThe result they earned on the field.
PGMOL and officialsCredibility and accountability.
Premier LeagueIntegrity and competition.
FansTrust in the game.
Other clubsPrecedent and league standings.

The case

The Premier League introduced the video assistant referee (VAR) to correct clear errors. Video officials work from a central hub, reviewing goals and other key decisions.[1]

Background

VAR was formally written into the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) on March 3, 2018, under the philosophy of “minimal interference, maximum benefit.” It is meant to correct “clear and obvious errors” and “serious missed incidents.”[1] The Premier League introduced it at the start of the 2019–20 season.[3]

The match had already turned on VAR. Liverpool were down to 10 men after Curtis Jones was sent off, following VAR intervention, for a tackle on Yves Bissouma. The club’s appeal failed, and Jones served a three-game ban.[3] PGMOL said the checking process itself was done correctly: the kick point was accurately selected, and a single 2D line on the second-to-last defender’s foot showed Díaz clearly onside.[2] In the released audio, England called the check “perfect” before saying “check complete,” and referee Simon Hooper replied, “Well done boys. Good process.”[3]

The rules and governance

The protocol barred correction once play restarted. The VAR protocol in the Laws of the Game lets a VAR assist the referee only for a “clear and obvious error” or “serious missed incident” in four categories, the first of which is goal or no goal. It says that “only the referee can initiate a ‘review’” and that “there is no time limit for the review process as accuracy is more important than speed.”[5] But once play “has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’” except for mistaken identity or certain serious sending-off offenses. A wrongly disallowed goal is not among them.[5] After the error was spotted, the ball went out for a Liverpool throw-in. BBC Sport’s analysis concluded that under the laws the officials could not have stopped the match then and gone back to award the goal.[3] PGMOL’s review set out three changes. Guidance would reiterate that efficiency must never come at the expense of accuracy. A new communication protocol would clarify on-field decisions. And the VAR would confirm the outcome with the assistant VAR before telling the referee.[2]

PGMOL also took action on personnel and outside work. England and Cook were removed from their remaining fixtures that round and left out of the next round’s appointments.[2] England, Cook and fourth official Michael Oliver had officiated a league match in the United Arab Emirates two days earlier, and PGMOL and the FA agreed to review the policy allowing officials to work matches outside FIFA or UEFA appointments.[2][3] The Premier League accepted PGMOL’s recommendations and planned a broader review.[3]

The goal

On September 30, 2023, Tottenham hosted Liverpool. With the score 0–0 and Liverpool down to 10 men, Luis Díaz scored in the 34th minute. The assistant referee flagged him offside.[3] The VAR team, led by Darren England with assistant VAR Dan Cook, checked the decision. The image they created showed Díaz “clearly onside.”[2]

The error

PGMOL later explained: “In a lapse of concentration and loss of focus in that moment, the VAR lost sight of the on-field decision and he incorrectly communicated ‘check complete’, therefore inadvertently confirming the on-field decision.” He did so without consulting the assistant VAR, and the match restarted immediately.[2] Seconds later, the replay operator and assistant VAR pointed out that the on-field decision had been offside. A hub manager called for the game to be delayed, but the VAR said, “They’ve restarted the game. Can’t do anything.”[3] The officials concluded that VAR protocol did not permit intervention after play had restarted.[2]

Tottenham scored soon after. Liverpool equalized but, reduced to nine men, lost 2–1 to a stoppage-time own goal.[3]

The response

PGMOL acknowledged a “significant human error” immediately after the match.[2][4] Liverpool’s statement the next day said “the correct application of the laws of the game did not occur, resulting in sporting integrity being undermined.”[3][6] The club said the pressures on officials “are supposed to be alleviated, not exacerbated, by the existence and implementation of VAR.” It called it “unsatisfactory that sufficient time was not afforded to allow the correct decision to be made.” It also rejected the label “significant human error” as “unacceptable” before any review, and said it would “explore the range of options available given the clear need for escalation and resolution.”[6] PGMOL’s own statement had called the call “a clear and obvious factual error” that “should have resulted in the goal being awarded through VAR intervention.”[6] Klopp said the defeat came in “the most unfair circumstances,” and that PGMOL’s statement “doesn’t help.” The referees’ chief, Howard Webb, spoke to the club about the incident.[6] On October 3, PGMOL released the audio, saying “standards fell short of expectations”; the Premier League said the incident highlighted “systemic weaknesses in the VAR process.”[2][3]

Klopp called for a replay: “Something like this never happened, so that is why I think a replay is the right thing to do.” He acknowledged, “The argument against that would be it opens the gates. It is unprecedented.”[4] BBC Sport reported there was no prospect of the league considering one.[4]

It emerged that England and Cook had worked a match in the United Arab Emirates shortly before, reportedly for payment, raising concerns about fatigue and outside work.[1]

Aftermath

The error fed a wider push to automate the most mechanical part of offside checks. On April 12, 2025, the Premier League introduced semi-automated offside technology, after non-live testing in the league and live use in the FA Cup that season.[7] The league said the system automates key elements of the offside process to support the VAR, placing the virtual offside line more efficiently through optical player tracking and producing graphics for fans in the stadium and on broadcasts.[7] The technology addresses line-drawing and speed. The Díaz error was a different kind of failure: the line was drawn correctly, and the VAR then communicated the wrong outcome.[2]

The core dilemma

Everyone agreed the decision was wrong, and officials knew it within seconds. But the rules did not allow correction after a restart, and replaying matches for officiating errors could undermine the finality of results. When a known error decides a match, what does fairness require?

Competing values

  • Correctness vs. finality.
  • Protocol vs. common sense.
  • Transparency vs. protecting officials.
  • Officials’ livelihoods vs. potential conflicts.

Strongest arguments

For letting the result stand: results must be final, errors are part of sport, and replays would invite endless disputes.

For a remedy: this was an acknowledged procedural error, not a judgment call, and technology meant to prevent such outcomes caused one.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A utilitarian lens weighs the many errors VAR corrects against the damage from rare but high-profile failures. It asks whether rules forbidding correction after a restart produce the best results overall, or whether a narrow exception for acknowledged errors would be better.

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian lens asks what officials owe teams: accuracy, honesty about mistakes, and consistent rules. Releasing the audio reflects a duty of transparency, while refusing a replay reflects a duty to apply rules the same way for every club.

Justice

A justice lens asks whether Liverpool were treated fairly when an acknowledged error affected the result, and whether any remedy is possible without unfairness to Tottenham and other clubs. It also asks whether officials’ outside work affects fair officiating.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. Spot the issue. You are the hub operations manager watching a VAR team realize, seconds after a restart, that it confirmed the wrong decision on a goal. The stakeholders include both clubs, players, fans, broadcasters, the officials and the league. The codes in play are the Laws of the Game, the VAR protocol and PGMOL procedures.
  2. Gather facts. What exactly went wrong? Has play restarted? What does the protocol permit at this point?
  3. Test options. Options: (a) follow the protocol and allow play to continue; (b) ask the referee to stop play and correct the error; (c) allow play to continue but immediately acknowledge the error publicly. Weigh rule consistency against correcting a known injustice.
  4. Check codes and law. Would your choice withstand scrutiny if the audio were released? Would you accept the same treatment if your team were affected?
  5. Decide and document. Record the timeline and the decision taken.
  6. Communicate and follow up. Communicate the error transparently to both clubs and the public, and review the protocol to prevent a recurrence.

What’s settled and what’s contested

  • Settled: the error; PGMOL’s admission; the result stood.
  • Contested: whether a replay or protocol change was required; how far officials’ outside work contributed.

Why this case matters

The case shows that technology does not remove human error and raises the question of how sports should respond when they know a decision was wrong.

Key terms

Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Institutional accountability
Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.
Due process
Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.
Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Should the match have been replayed? What precedent would that set?
  2. Should the protocol allow play to be stopped after a restart to correct an obvious error?
  3. Was releasing the audio the right response?
  4. Should referees take paid work abroad during the season?
  5. Does VAR improve or undermine trust in officiating?

Sources

  1. Video assistant referee — Wikipedia
  2. PGMOL release VAR audio from Spurs v Liverpool — Premier League
  3. Liverpool v Spurs VAR: PGMOL releases audio of Luis Diaz's controversial disallowed goal — BBC Sport
  4. Jurgen Klopp wants Tottenham-Liverpool replay after VAR error — BBC Sport
  5. Laws of the Game: Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol — International Football Association Board (IFAB)
  6. Tottenham 2-1 Liverpool: VAR error undermined sporting integrity - Reds — BBC Sport
  7. Semi-automated offside technology to be introduced in Matchweek 32 — Premier League