Mark Clattenburg has effectively dismissed Andoni Iraola’s furious reaction to Leeds United’s dramatic 97th-minute equaliser against Bournemouth, insisting VAR was right to allow the goal to stand.
The Cherries boss did not hold back after the 2-2 draw, claiming his side had been denied two crucial points in their push for a top-half finish. Longstaff volleyed home a loose ball from a long throw-in.
“We are very frustrated, very angry. To concede in the 96th minute, I think it’s a clear offside. Joel Piroe affects the keeper, he’s at the side where the ball goes in. It’s not acceptable,” Iraola said.
Who was your Man of the Match?
Leeds have gone seven unbeaten!
“I am waiting to talk to the referee. I hope he explains it to me, but we’ve lost two points in the last second of the game with a player offside affecting our keeper.” Iraola did admit Leeds were “incredible”.
Mark Clattenburg explains why VAR allowed Leeds goal
But Clattenburg’s assessment cuts directly against that argument – and highlights why the decision is far less controversial inside refereeing circles than it appears. He told LeedsUnited.News:
“Another interesting situation where offside is again not a factual decision but a subjective one, which will create some debate. Leeds United equalise in the dying minutes from Longstaff, but there was a Leeds player, Piroe, in the line of vision of the goalkeeper as well as some of the Bournemouth defenders.
“What the match officials have to determine is: does the line of vision of the attacker stop the goalkeeper’s ability to save the ball? I feel that Longstaff’s shot was too good,” Clattenburg continued.
“The goalkeeper would not have saved it even if the Leeds player was in the line of vision. Football wants goals and we do not want to disallow goals when the goalkeeper has no chance to save the ball.”
That last line is the key – because it exposes the fundamental gap between Iraola’s frustration and how VAR is actually applied. The Bournemouth boss is focused on presence. Clattenburg is focused on impact.
Leeds saved by the quality of Sean Longstaff’s strike
And under current guidance, impact is everything. Even if Piroe is in an offside position, the question officials must answer is whether he materially prevented the goalkeeper from making a save.
In Clattenburg’s view, the answer is clear: he didn’t. The strike from Longstaff – arriving in the 97th minute – was simply beyond the goalkeeper. Had it not been in the corner, it might not have counted.
That interpretation matters even more when you consider what was at stake for Leeds. The point lifted Daniel Farke’s side to 15th in the Premier League on 40 points, moving them nine points clear.
How many points do YOU think Leeds win from the last five PL games?
Three will surely be enough!
It also extended their unbeaten run to five matches, a surge that has transformed their survival bid in recent weeks. In other words, this was not just a controversial moment – it was season-defining.
And that context only strengthens Clattenburg’s argument. Modern officiating is increasingly reluctant to rule out goals in marginal offside scenarios unless there is a clear and obvious impact on the goalkeeper.
As he bluntly put it, “football wants goals” — and the threshold to disallow one is higher than many managers would like. Iraola may feel aggrieved, but this is not VAR going rogue.
This is VAR doing exactly what it is designed to do — prioritising decisive outcomes over debatable interference. For Leeds, it could prove the moment that keeps them up.
Receive a digest of our best Leeds content each week direct to your mailbox
