Arsenal’s 2-0 victory over Sunderland at the Stadium of Light on September 12 has come under renewed scrutiny after the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel reviewed the controversial penalty awarded to the hosts.
The decision came early in the second half, when referee John Brooks ruled that Ezri Konsa had committed a holding offence against Sunderland defender Dan Ballard.
VAR Stuart Attwell checked the incident and backed the on-field decision, giving Enzo Le Fee the opportunity to put Sunderland ahead.
David Raya kept Arsenal level by saving Le Fee’s penalty and turning the ball onto the post. Bruno Guimaraes then scored 121 seconds later, before Bukayo Saka converted a stoppage-time penalty to complete the victory.
READ MORE: Real Madrid players left shocked after Vinicius Junior didn’t join Arsenal
The result was Arsenal’s fourth consecutive Premier League win, but their 100 per cent record has since ended.
Brighton & Hove Albion beat the champions 3-0 at the Amex Stadium on September 19, leaving Arsenal with 12 points from their opening five league matches.
The KMI Panel has now delivered its assessment of the Sunderland incident, and its findings separate the referee’s original decision from VAR’s decision not to intervene.
The five-member panel voted unanimously, 5-0, that Brooks was wrong to award Sunderland a penalty for the holding offence involving Konsa and Ballard.
However, it voted 3-2 that VAR was correct not to recommend an on-field review because the incident did not meet the threshold for a clear and obvious error.
The panel said Konsa initially had his arms around Ballard, but Ballard then engaged in a holding action which pulled Konsa towards him before both players fell to the ground.
The majority therefore considered the combined actions of the two players when deciding that the error was not clear and obvious enough for VAR intervention.
That distinction is central to the Premier League’s KMI process. The panel assesses whether the referee made the correct on-field decision and separately considers whether an incorrect decision was sufficiently clear and obvious to require VAR intervention.
During the match, Brooks explained his decision by saying Konsa was “all over him at the near post facing the wrong way”, while Attwell told him that he was satisfied it was a holding offence.
The VAR therefore confirmed the penalty without recommending a review at the pitchside monitor.
The Sunderland penalty was not the only major incident assessed from the match. The panel unanimously supported the decision to award Arsenal a late penalty after Reinildo Mandava fouled Saka, as well as the Sunderland defender’s subsequent sending-off.
The panel also unanimously backed the decision to rule out Jurrien Timber’s goal for offside.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE NOW.ARSENAL WHATSAPP GROUP CHAT TO KEEP UP TO DATE WITH ALL THE LATEST NEWS!
The only other decision to split the panel concerned a potential penalty for Arsenal following a challenge by Brian Brobbey on Riccardo Calafiori.
The decision not to award a penalty was supported 4-1, with one panellist believing Arsenal should have received a spot-kick and that VAR should have intervened.
Mikel Arteta had strongly criticised the Sunderland penalty after the match, describing the decision as unacceptable and saying he had watched the incident repeatedly without understanding how a penalty had been awarded.
Arsenal subsequently sought an explanation from Pro Ref over the decision and the lack of VAR intervention.
The KMI verdict now provides an official assessment of the controversy.
While the panel unanimously concluded that Sunderland should not have been awarded the penalty, the 3-2 vote means the majority did not consider the mistake clear and obvious enough to require VAR to overturn the referee’s decision.
Mikel Arteta - Arsenal
Mikel Arteta - Arsenal