Archive November 9, 2025

McLaren’s Lando Norris extended his championship lead over team-mate and title rival Oscar Piastri to 24 points with a dominant victory at the Sao Paulo Grand Prix.

But Norris’ second consecutive victory – which takes him nearly a clear win ahead of Piastri with three grands prix remaining – was overshadowed by a remarkable recovery drive by Max Verstappen.

The Red Bull driver finished third, right behind Mercedes’ Kimi Antonelli, after starting from the pit lane and suffering an early puncture.

Verstappen, though, is now 49 points behind Norris and probably out of title contention.

The main storylines of a compelling race were:

Norris’ victory, his second in succession and his seventh in 21 races this year, was never in doubt on what the Briton described as a “perfect weekend”.

The 25-year-old controlled the race from the front after taking pole position, to add to the sprint victory from pole he took on Saturday.

The weekend has netted him a total of 33 points and put a headlock on the championship.

“To be honest, I didn’t think we were the quickest out there on track today so I’m glad to take home the win,” Norris said.

“It’s a great win but to be honest seeing how quick Max was today, I’m pretty disappointed we weren’t quicker.”

Norris got off the line well to take the lead on the first lap and navigated a chaotic opening section of the race with an early safety car followed by a virtual safety car (VSC) a few laps later before moving off into the distance to win on a two-stop strategy.

The safety car was caused by a first-lap crash involving Sauber’s Gabriel Bortoleto, who tangled with Lance Stroll’s Aston Martin at Turn Nine.

And the VSC followed a collision at the restart on lap six between Piastri, Antonelli and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, which led to Leclerc’s retirement and earned Piastri his penalty.

Lewis Hamilton also suffered in the early laps, his Ferrari damaged in a hit by Williams’ Carlos Sainz at Turn One, before the seven-time champion broke his front wing by misjudging a passing attempt on Alpine’s Franco Colapinto at the start of lap two.

Hamilton spent the rest of the race at the back lacking pace because of a damaged floor and eventually retired.

Verstappen qualified only 16th after struggling with the performance of his car all weekend, and Red Bull decided to start him from the pit lane so they could fit a new engine and change the set-up of his car in an attempt to improve its pace.

He was up to 13th by lap seven but then had to pit because he picked up a puncture.

The world champion gained time by stopping under the VSC, but that dropped him to the back again, but he went on a two-stop strategy from there and showed strong pace to climb back up the field.

By lap 51, he was leading after Norris made his final pit stop, and it looked as if Red Bull might leave him out on his medium tyres to try to fend off Norris and then the Mercedes drivers in the closing laps.

Instead they went on the attack, pitting Verstappen for fresh soft tyres three laps later.

He emerged in fourth place, 5.6 seconds behind Russell, who he closed on quickly and passed for third place with a lovely move around the outside of Turn One on lap 63.

Verstappen then set off after Antonelli, and was with him by lap 67, with four to go, but the Italian novice drove well to keep the Red Bull at bay as the Dutchman’s tyres began to lose their edge.

“To be on the podium from the pit lane I didn’t expect that at all, even with a puncture as well at the beginning of the race,” he said.

“That is why we had to box again, so an incredible result and I’m very happy with that.”

The only question is whether an even more remarkable result was possible.

Piastri was found to be at fault by the stewards for the incident with Antonelli and Leclerc.

The Australian dived down the inside and was almost fully alongside Antonelli as the three cars went into the first corner side-by-side.

But Piastri locked a wheel on the inside and the two cars collided at the apex. That flicked Antonelli into Leclerc, breaking the Ferrari’s front suspension.

Although the move looked a good one, the stewards decided Piastri was wholly responsible for the collision – something with which Leclerc did not agree – and penalised him 10 seconds.

Piastri has not finished ahead of Norris since the Dutch Grand Prix at the end of August and the momentum has really gone out of his season with only races in Las Vegas, Qatar and Abu Dhabi remaining.

Behind Piastri, Oliver Bearman drove another strong race to finish as best of the rest for Haas in sixth.

Liverpool may have been on the end of a 3-0 defeat at Manchester City, but did a pivotal moment dramatically alter the course of the game?

The Premier League champions were 1-0 down at the time following Erling Haaland’s opener just before the half-hour mark.

However, the Reds thought they had equalised in the 38th minute when captain Virgil van Dijk headed home.

The Netherlands centre-back escaped the attentions of Matheus Nunes and met Mohamed Salah’s inswinging corner just outside the six-yard box.

Van Dijk planted a powerful header beyond the dive of City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and ran off in celebration.

However, the assistant referee then decided to raise his flag and a check by the video assistant referee (VAR) determined that Liverpool defender Andy Robertson interfered with play from an offside position and it was disallowed.

Robertson had his back to goal just in front of the line, behind Jeremy Doku, and ducked out of the way of Van Dijk’s header.

Liverpool manager Arne Slot told Sky Sports it was “obvious and clear that the wrong decision has been made” to disallow the goal.

“He didn’t interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do. Immediately after the game someone showed me the goal that the same referee allowed – City against Wolves last season,” he said.

“So it took the linesman 13 seconds to raise his flag to say it was offside. So there was clearly communication, but as I said that [goal] could have influenced the game in a positive way for us.”

Van Dijk said that “the officials are deciding the key decisions” and there was “no point discussing this from my point of view”.

He added: “It doesn’t matter what I say [about the goal] because anything I say will be in the media and the whole international break will be about my comment on the decision.”

Offside is covered by law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26.

The graphic below clarifies the law and the Premier League’s match centre on X made specific reference to the incident.

The decision to disallow Van Dijk’s goal provoked debate among pundits.

Former Liverpool midfielder Danny Murphy said the goal “should stand” because Robertson was “not in Donnarumma’s line of vision”.

Ex-Manchester United defender Gary Neville said during Sky Sports’ commentary he was “not sure” if it should have been chalked off because Robertson was “to the left of Donnarumma” and he was “not convinced” the City goalkeeper “is ever getting near that”.

Former Aston Villa forward Dion Dublin said “Robertson is in an offside position” but crucially was “not in his [Donnarumma’s] eyeline”.

“I have seen it two or three times and if anyone could be in his eyeline it would be Jeremy Doku,” Dublin added.

Subjective offside decisions, those where the player does not touch the ball, are always controversial.

They require interpretation about impact from the officials, and that is often not straightforward.

And Chris Kavanagh, who was the referee for Sunday’s game, knows all about them.

As Virgil van Dijk’s header made its way towards goal, Andrew Robertson ducked to allow the ball to go into the net. The Scotland international was stood offside, and the assistant raised his flag for offside.

This decision was not about line of vision, but “an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”.

The offside law does not require a referee to think Manchester City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma would definitely save it, only that his ability to do so has been affected. It is the ducking motion which is absolutely crucial because it could put doubt into the goalkeeper’s mind about a potential touch.

If Donnarumma had not been stood close to Robertson, or if the Scotland international was not in the six-yard area, the case for offside would have been weak.

But there must be an argument that Donnarumma had been impacted. For that reason, as the on-field team gave offside, it was not likely to be overturned through a VAR review.

It is a borderline call, but still supportable as an on-field decision.

However, officials are advised it’s usually best to leave complicated subjective offside decisions to the VAR, and if that had happened Liverpool would likely have had an equaliser.

A good comparison is a disallowed Everton goal against Manchester United in March 2020. Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s shot was deflected towards goal, and an offside Gylfi Sigurdsson, who was sat inside the six-yard box, withdrew his legs to allow the ball through. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We can compare it to a goal which was given through VAR last season. John Stones’ late winner for Manchester City at Wolves was chalked off on the field for Bernardo Silva being in the line of vision of goalkeeper Jose Sa.

But while he was close to Sa he wasn’t in front of him and, unlike Robertson, he did not duck out of the path of the ball. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We have seen a couple of similar situations this season – a Manchester United goal at Nottingham Forest, and one for Leeds against Bournemouth – where an offside player has made a small movement away from the ball.

Liverpool may have been on the end of a 3-0 defeat at Manchester City, but did a pivotal moment dramatically alter the course of the game?

The Premier League champions were 1-0 down at the time following Erling Haaland’s opener just before the half-hour mark.

However, the Reds thought they had equalised in the 38th minute when captain Virgil van Dijk headed home.

The Netherlands centre-back escaped the attentions of Matheus Nunes and met Mohamed Salah’s inswinging corner just outside the six-yard box.

Van Dijk planted a powerful header beyond the dive of City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and ran off in celebration.

However, the assistant referee then decided to raise his flag and a check by the video assistant referee (VAR) determined that Liverpool defender Andy Robertson interfered with play from an offside position and it was disallowed.

Robertson had his back to goal just in front of the line, behind Jeremy Doku, and ducked out of the way of Van Dijk’s header.

Liverpool manager Arne Slot told Sky Sports it was “obvious and clear that the wrong decision has been made” to disallow the goal.

“He didn’t interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do. Immediately after the game someone showed me the goal that the same referee allowed – City against Wolves last season,” he said.

“So it took the linesman 13 seconds to raise his flag to say it was offside. So there was clearly communication, but as I said that [goal] could have influenced the game in a positive way for us.”

Van Dijk said that “the officials are deciding the key decisions” and there was “no point discussing this from my point of view”.

He added: “It doesn’t matter what I say [about the goal] because anything I say will be in the media and the whole international break will be about my comment on the decision.”

Offside is covered by law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26.

The graphic below clarifies the law and the Premier League’s match centre on X made specific reference to the incident.

The decision to disallow Van Dijk’s goal provoked debate among pundits.

Former Liverpool midfielder Danny Murphy said the goal “should stand” because Robertson was “not in Donnarumma’s line of vision”.

Ex-Manchester United defender Gary Neville said during Sky Sports’ commentary he was “not sure” if it should have been chalked off because Robertson was “to the left of Donnarumma” and he was “not convinced” the City goalkeeper “is ever getting near that”.

Former Aston Villa forward Dion Dublin said “Robertson is in an offside position” but crucially was “not in his [Donnarumma’s] eyeline”.

“I have seen it two or three times and if anyone could be in his eyeline it would be Jeremy Doku,” Dublin added.

Subjective offside decisions, those where the player does not touch the ball, are always controversial.

They require interpretation about impact from the officials, and that is often not straightforward.

And Chris Kavanagh, who was the referee for Sunday’s game, knows all about them.

As Virgil van Dijk’s header made its way towards goal, Andrew Robertson ducked to allow the ball to go into the net. The Scotland international was stood offside, and the assistant raised his flag for offside.

This decision was not about line of vision, but “an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”.

The offside law does not require a referee to think Manchester City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma would definitely save it, only that his ability to do so has been affected. It is the ducking motion which is absolutely crucial because it could put doubt into the goalkeeper’s mind about a potential touch.

If Donnarumma had not been stood close to Robertson, or if the Scotland international was not in the six-yard area, the case for offside would have been weak.

But there must be an argument that Donnarumma had been impacted. For that reason, as the on-field team gave offside, it was not likely to be overturned through a VAR review.

It is a borderline call, but still supportable as an on-field decision.

However, officials are advised that it’s usually best to leave complicated subjective offside decisions to the VAR, and if that had happened Liverpool would likely have had an equaliser.

A good comparison is a disallowed Everton goal against Manchester United in March 2020. Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s shot was deflected towards goal, and an offside Gylfi Sigurdsson, who was sat inside the six-yard box, withdrew his legs to allow the ball through. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We can compare it to a goal which was given through VAR last season. John Stones’ late winner for Manchester City at Wolves was chalked off on the field for Bernardo Silva being in the line of vision of goalkeeper Jose Sa. But while he was close to Sa he wasn’t in front of him and, unlike Robertson, he did not duck out of the path of the ball. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

Liverpool may have been on the end of a 3-0 defeat at Manchester City, but did a pivotal moment dramatically alter the course of the game?

The Premier League champions were 1-0 down at the time following Erling Haaland’s opener just before the half-hour mark.

However, the Reds thought they had equalised in the 38th minute when captain Virgil van Dijk headed home.

The Netherlands centre-back escaped the attentions of Matheus Nunes and met Mohamed Salah’s inswinging corner just outside the six-yard box.

Van Dijk planted a powerful header beyond the dive of City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and ran off in celebration.

However, the assistant referee then decided to raise his flag and a check by the video assistant referee (VAR) determined that Liverpool defender Andy Robertson interfered with play from an offside position and it was disallowed.

Robertson had his back to goal just in front of the line, behind Jeremy Doku, and ducked out of the way of Van Dijk’s header.

Liverpool manager Arne Slot told Sky Sports it was “obvious and clear that the wrong decision has been made” to disallow the goal.

“He didn’t interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do. Immediately after the game someone showed me the goal that the same referee allowed – City against Wolves last season,” he said.

“So it took the linesman 13 seconds to raise his flag to say it was offside. So there was clearly communication, but as I said that [goal] could have influenced the game in a positive way for us.”

Van Dijk said that “the officials are deciding the key decisions” and there was “no point discussing this from my point of view”.

He added: “It doesn’t matter what I say [about the goal] because anything I say will be in the media and the whole international break will be about my comment on the decision.”

Offside is covered by law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26.

The graphic below clarifies the law and the Premier League’s match centre on X made specific reference to the incident.

The decision to disallow Van Dijk’s goal provoked debate among pundits.

Former Liverpool midfielder Danny Murphy said the goal “should stand” because Robertson was “not in Donnarumma’s line of vision”.

Ex-Manchester United defender Gary Neville said during Sky Sports’ commentary he was “not sure” if it should have been chalked off because Robertson was “to the left of Donnarumma” and he was “not convinced” the City goalkeeper “is ever getting near that”.

Former Aston Villa forward Dion Dublin said “Robertson is in an offside position” but crucially was “not in his [Donnarumma’s] eyeline”.

“I have seen it two or three times and if anyone could be in his eyeline it would be Jeremy Doku,” Dublin added.

Subjective offside decisions, those where the player does not touch the ball, are always controversial.

They require interpretation about impact from the officials, and that is often not straightforward.

And Chris Kavanagh, who was the referee for Sunday’s game, knows all about them.

As Virgil van Dijk’s header made its way towards goal, Andrew Robertson ducked to allow the ball to go into the net. The Scotland international was stood offside, and the assistant raised his flag for offside.

This decision was not about line of vision, but “an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”.

The offside law does not require a referee to think Manchester City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma would definitely save it, only that his ability to do so has been affected. It is the ducking motion which is absolutely crucial because it could put doubt into the goalkeeper’s mind about a potential touch.

If Donnarumma had not been stood close to Robertson, or if the Scotland international was not in the six-yard area, the case for offside would have been weak.

But there must be an argument that Donnarumma had been impacted. For that reason, as the on-field team gave offside, it was not likely to be overturned through a VAR review.

It is a borderline call, but still supportable as an on-field decision.

However, officials are advised that it’s usually best to leave complicated subjective offside decisions to the VAR, and if that had happened Liverpool would likely have had an equaliser.

A good comparison is a disallowed Everton goal against Manchester United in March 2020. Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s shot was deflected towards goal, and an offside Gylfi Sigurdsson, who was sat inside the six-yard box, withdrew his legs to allow the ball through. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We can compare it to a goal which was given through VAR last season. John Stones’ late winner for Manchester City at Wolves was chalked off on the field for Bernardo Silva being in the line of vision of goalkeeper Jose Sa. But while he was close to Sa he wasn’t in front of him and, unlike Robertson, he did not duck out of the path of the ball. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.