Panel Rules Liverpool Should Have Had Isak Penalty After Iraola’s Dive Order

• The Premier League’s independent Key Match Incidents panel voted 4:1 that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty when Jurrien Timber pulled Alexander Isak’s shirt in Arsenal’s 1-0 win at Anfield, per Sky Sports.
• The panel also voted 3:2 that VAR Stuart Attwell should have sent referee Andy Madley to the pitchside monitor.
• Isak stayed on his feet, and Liverpool head coach Andoni Iraola said afterwards he would tell the striker to go down next time.

Isak Stayed Up, and Liverpool Were Told They Were Right

Alexander Isak did not go to ground at Anfield, and an independent panel has now ruled that Liverpool should have had a penalty. In the 21st minute on 1 November, Isak just failed to get his head to a cross from Bradley Barcola as Arsenal defender Jurrien Timber held his shirt. Referee Andy Madley gave nothing. VAR Stuart Attwell checked the incident and cleared it. Arsenal led 1-0 through Kai Havertz at the time, and that was the final score.

Ten days later, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents panel has ruled the call wrong. It voted 4:1 that the penalty should have been awarded on the field and 3:2 that the VAR should have intervened. The panel is made up of five members: three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one from Pro Ref, the organisation responsible for refereeing in England.

What the Panel Decided

The Premier League published the verdict in a statement: “The panel felt that a penalty should have been awarded for a holding action by Timber on Isak, 4:1. One panellist considered the short-lived holding to lack clear impact on the ability of Isak to progress.”

“The majority also felt that VAR should have intervened to recommend an on-field review, 3:2, on the basis that it was a clear and obvious error.”

“Two panellists considered that the subjectivity in assessing impact meant this did not meet the high threshold for VAR intervention.”

The panel was unanimous on one point that Arsenal will welcome. Timber’s challenge did not warrant a red card for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

The league says match officials should penalise any holding actions that have a “clear material impact on play”. Referees are directed to weigh several factors, including whether a player is “focused solely on an opponent rather than the ball, if they are holding an opponent with both arms and if the holding is sustained or impactful to an opponent or their clothing.” On this occasion the panel decided Timber’s challenge on the Sweden international met the standard for a holding offence.

Iraola Told Isak to Dive

Liverpool’s head coach set the tone after the game. Andoni Iraola said: “There is a clear grab of the shirt. Alex was just in front of him. He was going to head in front of the goal, but couldn’t because he grabbed the shirt.”

“If he goes to the floor, they call the penalty, 100 per cent. It should be like this, but it is what it is.”

“Next time, the managers should tell Alex to go to the floor, otherwise they won’t call it. The answer is you have to dive. If you don’t dive they won’t call it.”

He also said: “The Isak one is a clear penalty. We can all see that he holds the t-shirt. The ball just goes one centimetre in front of Alex. Alex is going to hit the ball in front of the goal.”

Asked whether the player needed to go down, Iraola replied: “The fact that you are even asking me that shows he should have gone to the floor. If he does, they call the penalty 100 per cent.” Asked whether he will tell Alex to go down next time, he said: “Yes, definitely.”

Liverpool’s Szoboszlai questioned that order soon afterwards.

The Pundits Split Over Isak’s Reaction

The panel has settled the penalty. The argument over whether Isak should have gone down is still open. Jamie Carragher’s original verdict on the incident was blunt: “One of the best goalscorers in the league is pulled back seven yards out and it stops him heading the ball – why does he need to make a meal of it? VAR, do your job.”

Ian Wright said Isak should not have had to. “He shouldn’t have to make more of it. We can see it… Unless I’m pulled back, I’m going to head it as much as I can. When he pulled him, it was just about enough as he would need to go down.”

“VAR is wrong in this instance. If they gave that penalty, I wouldn’t sit here and say ‘I can’t believe they gave that’.”

Gary Neville took the opposite view: “It’s actually unnatural not to make more of it. When you get pulled and you’re just about to score, you ordinarily complain like crazy. It’s a very odd reaction from Isak.”

Daniel Sturridge said both things. “Unfortunately, he (Isak) has not fallen over. You’re supposed to fall over, put your arms in the air and show the referee you’re mad about it… to me, his reaction is almost like ‘VAR, do your job’.”

“But they’ve not done their job. He shouldn’t have to make more of it – clearly, he shouldn’t. Everyone can see that his arm is stretched, he [Timber] is holding him with a stretched-out arm.”

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher laid out the dilemma facing the officials. “It depends which angle you watch it from. The first angle, you see nothing. That is the referee’s angle.”

“The second angle, which is what VAR looks at, and it is a lot more damning.”

“VAR looks at it in slow motion, which is another thing against him. In normal speed, he grabs and grabs him quickly but let’s go. Does he do enough [for a penalty]?”

“What is Timber’s intention? He is on the wrong side of him. Does he do enough to stop him? He [Isak] will say yes, as he is close to the ball.”

“VAR would be accused of re-refereeing if it is a penalty. It is a case of damned if they do and damned if they don’t.”

“It has to be the case of on-field. The more I watch it, the more I think he [Timber] has taken a big chance and has got lucky.”

On what happens if Isak goes down, Gallagher said: “Once a player hits the ground, there are more questions to ask.”

“There is asking what has knocked him down. Has he gone down by his own momentum, has he slipped or has he been pulled or pushed?”

“Once you factor that in, obviously you have a different decision. He [referee] has to deal with the situation he has seen. He has seen a little pull of the jersey and thought no penalty.”

Jay Bothroyd had no doubts at all. “Where was the referee? Every angle, I can see it is a penalty.”

“He has pulled his shirt. How can none of them [referee and VAR] see that and say it is a penalty? I can’t comprehend that. I don’t get it.”

“That is one of the most obvious penalties [I have seen]. He is running forward! He has stifled his momentum going forward, to stop him heading the ball.”

“Every angle I look at, even normal time, I said it could be a penalty. I look at it now, the more I see it, the more I ask myself how they have missed it! How do they lose focus and not get that.”

Liverpool’s Virgil van Dijk also questioned the officials. “I’ve seen it back and I’ve seen it given as well on other occasions. Today it wasn’t meant to be.”

“The VAR doesn’t notice it? There are 50 cameras. Even more. Why does he have to complain when there are so many cameras? It is spotted because everyone’s seen it.”

“In the end, it wasn’t given and we lose the game unfortunately, so well done to Arsenal.”

What the Ruling Changes

Nothing about the result. Arsenal remain nine points clear of Liverpool at the top of the league. Isak has scored seven goals in nine Premier League games for Liverpool this season.

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta said he had not watched the incident back and had no comment when asked about it. On the Tuesday after the game he said he had a massive library of shirt pull clips and wanted to talk about what every team goes through.

The panel has so far examined 196 key incidents this season. The correct on-field decision was taken in 86 per cent of them, rising to 97 per cent after VAR intervention. This was one that VAR did not fix.

Liverpool now have a ruling that backs their complaint and a head coach who has said in public what he will tell his striker next time. The panel has said the foul was a penalty, and the question of whether Isak has to fall over to get one remains with the pundits.