The Premier League's KMI Panel has made it clear that Sunderland should not have been awarded a penalty against Arsenal on September 12
Ezri Konsa and Dan Ballard jostle
The KMI Panel have ruled that Sunderland should not have been awarded a penalty against Arsenal(Image: Michael Driver/MI News/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
View 2 Images
The Premier League have posted their Key Match Incidents Panel outcomes from game-week four and unsurprisingly, Sunderland's penalty against Arsenal has been a major topic of discussion. Ezri Konsa was adjudged to have fouled Dan Ballard during a grapple in the box by referee John Brooks, a decision Mikel Arteta later called "unacceptable." The KMI Panel agreed unanimously (5-0 on votes) that the incident should not have resulted in a penalty, however, there was debate (3-2 in favour of no intervention) over whether it met the threshold for VAR intervention and being overturned. It's fair to say the KMI Panel's verdict has caused a stir and football.london reporters Tom Canton (chief Arsenal correspondent) and Ryan Taylor have assessed the findings and what they actually mean.
FOLLOW OUR ARSENAL FB PAGE! Latest Gunners news, analysis and much more via our dedicated Facebook page
Tom Canton
Four panels so far this season have revealed that in two separate weeks, Arsenal have seen a decision made which KMI unanimously agrees was incorrectly made. Thankfully, in both cases, the Gunners overcame this and won, although Manchester City, their main title rivals, have benefited and sit three points clear.
But the gripe which many understandably have with the Sunderland penalty review is that, despite the unanimous agreement it was an error, three of the five panellists felt VAR correctly didn’t intervene and that this didn’t meet the ‘clear and obvious error’ threshold.
The reason given is that both players are grappling, but there appears to be some contradiction present. How can all five agree the referee made the wrong call, but three of the five then say VAR shouldn’t overturn it? It begs the question, what, therefore, is the point of having VAR if some feel it shouldn’t correct errors? Just another day in the mad house.
Ezri Konsa and Dan Ballard
Ezri Konsa was adjudged to have fouled Dan Ballard by referee John Brooks(Image: Michael Driver/MI News/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
View 2 Images
Ryan Taylor
I have to be honest, I just don't understand how an incident can be considered wrong but not meet the threshold for VAR intervention.
The whole purpose of VAR is to overturn mistakes and the KMI Panel, having voted 5-0, have clearly concluded that Sunderland should not have been awarded a penalty.
In fact, what makes matters worse is just a few brief replays would have allowed referee Brooks to establish that.
Stuart Attwell was on VAR at the time and he said, according to the Premier League Match Centre, as the incident unfolded: “I’m happy that it’s a holding offence. The foul is confirmed. Confirming the on-field decision of penalty."
He reached that verdict in a matter of seconds, without properly examining replays. While I fully support the idea of letting referees ref and control matches, we should be seeking to utilise VAR where it's necessary and this was a clear case of that.
This whole ordeal is yet another black mark on VAR in my opinion. We are just no closer to improving the standard of officiating and Pro Ref are just overcomplicating things.
Content Image
Content Image