Liverpool’s 1-0 defeat to Arsenal at Anfield has continued to generate debate after the Reds were denied two penalty appeals during a controversial first half.The biggest talking point came when Alexander Isak appeared to have his shirt pulled by Arsenal defender Jurrien Timber while attempting to reach Bradley Barcola’s cross.Referee Andy Madley allowed play to continue, while VAR Stuart Attwell did not intervene. Isak remained on his feet and did not appeal for a penalty, but replays clearly showed Timber grabbing his shirt.The incident has since received significant scrutiny from former referees and pundits.
Isak penalty: why was it not given?
The Premier League’s VAR process operates around a high threshold for intervention. VAR can recommend a review when it believes there has been a clear and obvious error, rather than simply because another decision might be preferred.In this case, the officials decided that the shirt pull did not meet that threshold.Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher explained that the incident was difficult for VAR because the contact was brief and there was a question over whether Timber’s pull actually prevented Isak from reaching the ball.However, Gallagher also acknowledged that Timber had taken a major risk and was fortunate not to concede a penalty.The Premier League has not, at the time of writing, published a KMI Panel ruling specifically declaring the Isak decision incorrect. The league’s KMI Panel independently reviews key incidents, including penalty decisions, and assesses whether the on-field call was correct and, if not, whether it represented a clear and obvious error for VAR purposes.
What about the Gakpo penalty appeal?
Liverpool had another appeal shortly afterwards when Cody Gakpo went down after contact from Arsenal’s Christos Tzolis.Tzolis appeared to have his hands on Gakpo as the Liverpool forward attempted to reach the ball. Madley again decided against awarding a penalty, and VAR reviewed the incident without overturning the decision.This decision has received a different assessment from the Isak incident.Gallagher argued that Gakpo was unlikely to reach the ball even without Tzolis’ contact, meaning the contact did not have enough impact to justify a penalty. Gary Neville similarly felt the Arsenal player was clumsy but did not believe the incident warranted a spot-kick.
Iraola furious after Liverpool’s penalty appeals
Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola was particularly unhappy with the Isak decision.The Spaniard argued that Isak’s decision to remain on his feet may actually have worked against him. Iraola even admitted that he could be forced to tell his players to go down when they are fouled inside the penalty area.“Honestly, yes, we have to tell them to go down,” Iraola said, arguing that players are often rewarded when they make more of contact.Virgil van Dijk also questioned why Isak should have needed to react dramatically when the incident had been captured by numerous cameras.“I’ve seen it back and I’ve seen it given as well on other occasions,” the Liverpool captain said.
What the evidence currently suggests
The two Liverpool appeals should not necessarily be treated as identical.The Isak incident involved a visible shirt pull that stopped the striker from making a genuine attempt to reach a dangerous cross. Several analysts, including Ian Wright and Jamie Carragher, argued that it should have resulted in a penalty.The Gakpo incident involved contact that was reviewed by VAR, but there was a stronger argument that the Liverpool forward would not have reached the ball anyway.So while Liverpool can legitimately question why the Isak incident did not result in a penalty, the available assessments do not support the idea that both decisions were obviously wrong.The controversy is therefore likely to continue, particularly because the Isak incident came with Liverpool chasing an equaliser in a match they eventually lost 1-0 to Arsenal.Liverpool will now have to put the controversy behind them, but the question remains: should the Isak shirt pull have been a penalty?