Liverpool standard-bearers have every right to feel aggrieved during this international break. Refereeing decisions and a glaring lack of VAR intervention have dominated the agenda at Anfield following a frustrating sequence of Premier League matches.
The main flashpoint stems from Liverpool’s narrow 1-0 defeat to Mikel Arteta’s side on November 1. Officials allowed play to continue in the 21st minute after Jurrien Timber blatantly pulled back Alexander Isak inside the 18-yard box.
Isak was tracking a precise delivery from Bradley Barcola, yet Timber’s tug on his shirt prevented the Swedish striker from connecting with the cross. On-field referee Andy Madley missed the foul, while VAR official Stuart Attwell reviewed the footage and declined to recommend a pitchside monitor check.
Now, official confirmation has validated Liverpool’s anger. The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has officially ruled that the refereeing team should have awarded Liverpool a penalty.
A 4-1 majority of the panel confirmed that Madley made a clear and obvious error on the pitch. Furthermore, a separate 3-2 majority agreed that VAR Attwell should have instructed Madley to consult the monitor according to BBC Sport
Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty against Arsenal after Alexander Isak was pulled back by Jurrien Timber, the Premier League's KMI Panel has ruled.
The KMI Panel produced a split 3:2 vote that the VAR should have intervened.
?https://t.co/br0ZF7Zk6q
— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonBBC) November 11, 2026
Consequently, the non-decision altered the entire complexion of the match. Arsenal ultimately secured all three points thanks to a single goal from Kai Havertz. While two dissenters on the panel pointed to the subjective nature of shirt pulls,the overwhelming consensus remains that officials denied Liverpool a rightful opportunity from twelve yards.
Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola did not hold back after the final whistle. He highlighted the ridiculous precedent this sets for modern forwards:
“There is a clear grab of the shirt,” Iraola told BBC Match of the Day. “Alex [Isak] 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… Next time, the managers should tell Alex to go to the floor, otherwise they won’t call it.”
Meanwhile, Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta brushed off the controversy before his side’s mid-week Champions League tie against Slavia Prague, pointing toward wider inconsistencies across the division.
“I have a lot of clips about shirts, pulls, grabs,” Arteta stated. “I have a massive library that we can throw there to remind everybody what every team is going through.”
However, Liverpool’s frustration extends far beyond a single incident against Arsenal. The red side of Merseyside has found itself on the receiving end of a flawed application of the “incontrovertible evidence” threshold.
During the subsequent matchday, referee Tony Harrington awarded a late penalty against defender Miloš Kerkez following a clash of heads with Darío Osorio. Replays showed both players attempting to head the ball, making contact inevitable rather than reckless. Writing for The Athletic, refereeing expert Graham Scott noted that officials rarely call fouls for such accidental collisions:
“These challenges are not specifically covered in the laws of the game, so decisions are made based on convention and precedent,” Scott explained. “Officials assess these incidents much the same way as a challenge after a shot or cross, with contact by the defender attempting to block or save the ball deemed inevitable rather than foul play.”
Despite Scott and wider observers agreeing that Harrington misread the situation, VAR declined to intervene. Scott explained that updated guidance for the season restricts VAR overturns strictly to cases with “incontrovertible evidence.” Ironically, this setup creates an absurd outcome: VAR identifies an incorrect call, yet the guidance prevents the video official from sending the referee to the monitor.
Statistically, the pitchside monitor process has become an empty ritual rather than a genuine review tool. Recent data analyzing over 1,500 Premier League matches revealed that referees overturn their initial decision 95% of the time when instructed to view the screen.
As a result, the Premier League has created a system where monitors function as virtual guarantees of an overturn, while VAR officials refuse to send referees to check incidents that desperately require a second look.
Ultimately, these two back-to-back incidents expose a deep flaw in the current protocol. Liverpool suffered twice: first,when VAR failed to catch a clear shirt pull on Isak, and second, when VAR refused to correct an obvious misinterpretation involving Kerkez.
While the international break offers a brief respite from the weekly officiating drama, PGMOL must address these structural flaws quickly. Supporters do not demand perfection, but they rightfully expect fairness and common sense two qualities currently missing from the VAR experience.