When ruling goals out during Liverpool’s 2-0 victory against Burnley, former Premier League referee Mark Clattenburg feels the referees only made one of their two important judgements correctly.

Darwin Nunez’s early opener was bolstered by a late goal from Diogo Jota, making Liverpool’s most recent victory a little nerve-wracking. This resulted from the visitors’ decision to chalk off two goals.

Before halftime, Cody Gakpo scored the first goal, which referee Paul Tierney promptly disallowed after Nunez was judged to have fouled Charlie Taylor in close range. Replays revealed that the Reds’ No. 9 made very little contact, but the ECHO believes that the decision stood because VAR was unable to discover sufficient evidence to reverse it.

After the final whistle, Clattenburg noted on Amazon Prime’s coverage that Tierney, who he felt officiated well generally, got this one wrong.

“See, I thought Paul Tierney refereed this game well, he played a wonderful advantage for Liverpool’s second goal but this one I don’t agree with,” he stated. “Observe the Burnley defender’s response—he puts his hands to his head. He’s moved in front of Nunez, and from various perspectives, I can’t see that Nunez made any contact, so I don’t consider it a foul.

“Once Paul Tierney makes the decision, it is incredibly subjective, which is why there are so many disagreements over whether or not the VAR is carrying out his duties. On the pitch of play, he made his choice, and the VAR said, “You know what? Not enough exists to forbid it.

“I disagree; I believe that continuing play and awarding the goal would have been the wisest course of action. I don’t think there was enough contact to call a foul.”

Harvey Elliott’s goal from the record, which had sailed past James Trafford, was also to be dissected by the man in charge of the Euro 2016 final.

Tierney’s initial check was passed by that one, but VAR The ECHO also understands that Simon Hooper encouraged his colleague to review it at the pitchside monitor, where he disregarded it because Mohamed Salah was judged to have obstructed the goalkeeper’s view from an offside position.

There was disagreement once more because Elliott’s shot was too strong for Trafford to handle because he was heading in the wrong direction, and Salah had been forced into his offside position. Clattenburg would have a greater understanding of the reasoning behind this decision as it is the referee’s responsibility to apply the laws as written, not to arbitrate custodian movements.

He clarified, “I can see it from both sides.” “The referees are enforcing the game’s rules exactly as they are stated. Was Mo Salah offside? Indeed. Was he shoved in the wrong direction? Indeed. Was that sufficient for a fine? No. He is, in fact, in an offside position. At the instant Elliott hits the ball, is he in the goalkeeper’s line? Indeed.

“One may argue that the goalie is moving in one direction. Is he making a single move to keep the ball? Since we aren’t goalkeepers, we have no idea. Referees are merely enforcing the written rules of the game.

“The distance is something else we examine. Mo Salah is in the six-yard box very near to goalie Trafford. Trafford would have a chance to save the ball if Mo Salah had been five or ten metres higher up, but as it hits the ground, there is a dispute: is Trafford heading in the right direction? Was there any chance he could have saved it? That is the application of the law exactly as written, not the referee’s judgement.

Mo Salah: Was he offside? Indeed. Was he within the field of view? Yes, I can see why that wasn’t included.

“For me, the easiest decision for the referee once he’s gone to the screen is to disallow it.”

It’s interesting to note that he added that Liverpool might have doubled their lead considerably earlier in the game if Elliott had shot to the left of the goal rather than the right.

“I don’t think there would have been a problem if it had gone in the other side [of the goal]. Salah blocked that side where the ball went, preventing him from having a chance to save it. We are only officials enforcing the rules of the game; we shouldn’t be figuring out what the goalie will do next. The referees apply the current version of the rules even if we disagree with it.

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