I knew that penalty against Nottingham Forest didn’t look right.
And now the Premier League’s own Key Match Incidents Panel has agreed.
The KMI Panel has ruled that Nottingham Forest should not have been awarded a penalty for Alisson’s challenge on Neco Williams during Liverpool’s 2-2 draw at Anfield.
But there’s an important twist.
The panel also believes VAR was correct not to overturn the referee’s decision because it did not reach the required threshold of a clear and obvious error.
And honestly, that tells us quite a lot about the current VAR system.
The penalty shouldn’t have been given
The incident came in the second half when Williams got into the Liverpool penalty area and got a shot away before Alisson made contact with him.
Referee Sam Barrott pointed to the spot and Morgan Gibbs-White converted, putting Forest 2-1 ahead.
At the time, I thought it was incredibly harsh on Liverpool.
The KMI Panel has now backed that view.
The panel voted 3-2 that the penalty should not have been awarded.
Their reasoning was that Alisson’s contact was an inevitable consequence of his momentum as he attempted to make the save and, crucially, the contact was not reckless and was below the threshold for a penalty.
That is pretty significant.
The decision wasn’t simply a case of Liverpool supporters complaining about a referee’s call.
The independent panel responsible for reviewing Premier League key incidents has actually concluded that the on-field decision was wrong.
But VAR wasn’t wrong?
This is where things get complicated.
The same panel unanimously supported VAR Michael Oliver’s decision not to intervene.
That was a 5-0 vote.
Why?
Because VAR operates under a much higher threshold.
The fact that the referee made the wrong decision does not automatically mean VAR should overturn it.
For VAR to intervene, the original decision has to be considered a clear and obvious error based on the evidence available.
The panel concluded that this particular incident didn’t meet that standard.
So we effectively have this:
The penalty was wrong.
VAR was right not to overturn it.
And I can understand the logic behind that.
But I can also understand why supporters find it incredibly frustrating.
So what are we actually supposed to make of this?
For me, this is one of the biggest problems with VAR.
We now have a situation where the authorities can effectively say:
The referee got it wrong, but VAR wasn’t wrong not to correct him.
That may be technically consistent with the rules.
But from a supporter’s perspective, Liverpool still suffered because of the incorrect decision.
There is no consolation when the final whistle goes.
Liverpool don’t get the penalty decision removed from the scoreline.
Forest don’t have to give the goal back.
The match simply finishes 2-2.
Thankfully, Victor Muñoz eventually rescued a point for Liverpool with his 82nd-minute equaliser.
But it could easily have cost Liverpool all three points.
This is why the threshold matters
I don’t think Liverpool supporters should be arguing that VAR should intervene in every controversial decision.
That would create an even bigger mess.
Football cannot have VAR stopping the game every few minutes because someone thinks a challenge was slightly wrong.
There has to be a threshold.
And that’s exactly why the KMI Panel can say the referee was wrong while VAR was still correct.
The problem is that the threshold can sometimes feel far too high.
If an incident is eventually judged to have been the wrong decision, supporters naturally ask why the technology watching multiple replays couldn’t fix it.
That’s the contradiction at the heart of VAR.
Liverpool have every right to feel frustrated
This is particularly frustrating because Liverpool had already shown enough character to come back from behind.
Forest took the lead.
Liverpool equalised through Alexander Isak.
Then Gibbs-White converted the penalty.
And Liverpool had to fight back again before Muñoz produced the equaliser.
The official Liverpool match report confirms that Williams had already released his shot when Alisson made contact and the penalty was awarded.
Now we know the KMI Panel believes that penalty shouldn’t have been given.
That’s not going to change the result.
But at least there is an official acknowledgement that the original decision was incorrect.
I’m glad Liverpool got something from the game
Had Liverpool lost 2-1, this decision would have been discussed for weeks.
Instead, Muñoz’s late equaliser at least meant Liverpool walked away with a point.
And given the way the game played out, perhaps that was important.
Liverpool still had to improve considerably after that result, and they subsequently produced their first Premier League victory of the season by beating Ipswich 2-0, with Isak scoring twice and Gakpo providing both assists.
So thankfully, the Forest result didn’t become an even bigger problem.
The verdict is clear
For me, the most important part of this story is simple:
The penalty shouldn’t have been given.
The KMI Panel has said so.
But because the mistake didn’t meet the very high threshold required for VAR intervention, Michael Oliver was correct not to send Barrott to the monitor.
I understand why that is the rule.
I just don’t necessarily like the consequences of it.
Liverpool were fortunate to escape with a point because Muñoz produced that late equaliser.
And while the KMI Panel can’t give us those two missing points back, at least we now have confirmation that Liverpool were right to feel aggrieved about that penalty.
The referee got the decision wrong.
VAR couldn’t intervene.
And once again, we’re left asking whether the current VAR system is actually giving football the clarity it was supposed to provide.
Jamie (The Kopite View)
Leave a Reply