Howard Webb insisted referee Craig Pawson was right to send off Domink Szoboszlai - even though it “killed one of the moments of the season.”

Liverpool star Szoboszlai got his marching orders after a tussle with Manchester City striker Erling Haaland and Rayan Cherki saw his late goal disallowed.

City still won 2-1 at Anfield but the row over the late disallowed goal caused a huge backlash with Sky pundit Gary Neville insisting the officials were killing the game.

Neville said: “That feels so unjust, I know there are rules, but there is the smell of the game, it's completely gone.

“There is no person who would disallow that goal. But it's going to be disallowed. Talk about killjoy. Liverpool lose by getting a man sent off. City lose because they don't get a goal. You have just killed one of the moments of the season.”

MAKE THE MIRROR YOUR FIRST CHOICE! Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

• Richard Keys thinks Mohamed Salah will reject Saudi for another transfer

• Mohamed Salah accused of acting like a 'big baby' at Liverpool after Jamie Carragher criticism

It has also been revealed that Pawson initially allowed the goal to stand because he “didn’t see” Haaland fouling Szoboszlai in the build-up.

VAR intervened and then ruled the goal should be disallowed because of a clear foul by Haaland which prevented Szoboszlai clearing the ball while the Liverpool midfielder saw red because he prevented a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Talking to the officiating team during the game, ref Pawson said: "The on-field decision is goal. There's an initial foul on Erling Haaland."

The VAR then followed: "We have a clear foul on Erling Haaland and then a clear foul on the defender. So, we can't allow this goal because there's a foul. We have a clear foul on the defender so we can't ignore it.

"However, there's a clear free-kick just before and a DOGSO. Because that's why Erling Haaland doesn't get on the end of the ball. So that is a DOGSO. So, it's on-field review. Cancel the goal and recommend a review for a DOGSO by Szoboszlai."

With Pawson beckoned to the screen to review the incident, he was shown Szoboszlai's pull on Haaland and replied: "That's the pull-back. That's the one I played advantage on, yeah."

The VAR then said: "But then we cannot play advantage and ignore this because there is a clear holding offence on the defende, there. So we have to disallow the goal for the holding on the defender, award Manchester City a free kick and give a red card for a DOGSO by Szoboszlai," to which Pawson replied: "Ah I didn't see that."

FOLLOW OUR LIVERPOOL FB PAGE! Latest Reds news and more on our dedicated Facebook page

Webb said on the Match Officials Mic’d Up show: “To referee at Premier League level, you need a feel for the game, you need an understanding, and we try to apply common sense where that's possible but there's a limit to that.

“This goal is only scored - it only goes in the goal - because Erling Haaland pulls Szoboszlai, preventing him from being able to clear the ball.

“The referee tries to play an advantage when Szoboszlai initially pulls Haaland, and he waits to see what happens and, of course if the ball goes straight into the goal, that's a good advantage, we give the goal.

“But the ball only goes into the goal because Haaland clearly commits an offence on Szoboszlai. We can’t ignore that. We can’t therefore just allow the advantage because it's only accrued because of that action by Haaland.

“So, we have to go right back to the initial offence, which is the one by Szoboszlai pulling Haaland. It's outside the penalty area, it denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity, so a free kick is given and Szoboszlai is sent off.

“He was appealing for this foul by Haaland, he was right to appeal because it was a foul. But unfortunately for him, he'd committed an initial offence that has to be penalised and we end up in what is clearly the right place through the use of VAR in the end.”

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us - and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.