Diving debate after Timber holds Isak in Arsenal's 1-0 win at Anfield
Arsenal beat Liverpool 1-0 at Anfield on Sunday in a match overshadowed by a contested incident in the Gunners' penalty area when Jurrien Timber appeared to grab Alexander Isak's shirt from a Bradley Barcola cross; referee Andy Madley missed the contact and VAR Stuart Attwell decided there was not enough to trigger a review. Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola said, "There is a clear grab of the shirt," and added, "The answer is you have to dive, if you don't dive they won't call it."
Barcola delivered the cross into the Arsenal box with Isak seemingly poised to head an equaliser, but the Sweden international failed to make contact and the ball went out for a goal-kick as Isak turned to walk back upfield. Replays showed Timber with a handful of Isak's shirt, but Isak did not appeal and Madley did not see the incident live; Stuart Attwell judged there was not enough for a VAR review. The result left Arsenal clear at the top and left Liverpool without a shot on target in the defeat.
A similar situation arose in February's Sunderland v Fulham match when Harry Wilson swung a free-kick into the area, Sunderland goalkeeper Robin Roefs punched clear and Calvin Bassey, on the ground, appealed for a shirt pull by Brian Brobbey. Nothing was given on the field but VAR Tony Harrington identified a tug and sent referee Craig Pawson to the monitor, resulting in a penalty. One incident led to a VAR-awarded spot-kick after a player went to ground; the Timber-Isak episode did not.
The laws of the game specify that "A holding offence occurs only when a player's contact with an opponent's body or equipment impedes the opponent's movement," and match pundit Danny Murphy commented on the Isak moment on Match of the Day: "Arsenal got lucky," adding, "If Isak maybe makes a bit more of it. I hate to see players exaggerate, but he's going to score. It's a big moment in the game." The article notes the so-called 'coat hanger effect', when a shirt is pulled well away from the body, is more likely to be penalised, but impact remains the deciding factor.
Former Premier League assistant referee Darren Cann told BBC Sport: "It has to be sustained holding - some will say it was sustained, some will say it wasn't. But it's interesting that Isak didn't even appeal." There is evident frustration in officiating circles about changing messaging on replay use: video officials have been warned not to rely on slow-motion replays, yet slow motion was cited in the Isak case by those scrutinising the clip. Observers say the incident appears more fleeting at full speed, and with the season's higher threshold for intervention it may be treated as an on-field error that does not meet the VAR review standard.
Uefa referees' chief Roberto Rosetti said in the summer there were "too many reviews", a concern that the article connects to an increased emphasis on identifying players who dive or embellish contact to "win" penalties. The Premier League's number of interventions has historically been the lowest in Europe, and the tally of subjective reviews stands at 14, exactly the same as last season after nine rounds. The piece adds that with the higher bar, a small amount of contact with no appeal is unlikely to lead to a review, and that "With only one missed VAR intervention, according to the Key Match Incidents Panel, in the Premier League this season, the video referees will argue they are getting the balance right." Iraola clearly will not share that sentiment today.
Iraola's public disparagement of the officiating outcome underlined Liverpool's frustration after the loss and left questions over how similar incidents will be treated by on-field referees and VAR in future matches.
