Liverpool 'reckless', VAR role - Van Dijk vs Guehi penalty verdict delivered

Liverpool earned three points following the 1-0 win over Crystal Palace, who thought they should have been awarded a penalty for Virgil van Dijk's challenge on Marc Guehi

Liverpool 'reckless', VAR role - Virgil van Dijk penalty verdict delivered after Crystal Palace

Bookmark

Liverpool ran out 1-0 winners over Crystal Palace to maintain their status as Premier League leaders on Saturday afternoon, but not without drama.

Alisson was forced off with another hamstring problem with the goalkeeper visibly frustrated and upset that he potentially faces more time on the sidelines. He was seen limping after full-time after replacement Vítezslav Jaros recorded a clean sheet on debut.

Meanwhile, there is discussion over whether Liverpool should have conceded a penalty in the second half. Virgil Van Dijk was seen holding the arm of Marc Guehi before belatedly releasing, albeit the Palace defender was adamant he had been held back.

Nothing was given by the referee or VAR. Explaining the decision, the Premier League said: “The referee’s call of no penalty for the challenge by van Dijk on Guéhi is checked and confirmed by VAR - deeming that the challenge was not sustained holding and had no impact on the play.”

Have Liverpool got away with one? Or is it much ado about nothing? Our writers have their say.

Joe Rimmer

I think it is one of those penalty decisions that you would be screaming for if it happened against you and screaming against if it was one of your defenders. In Van Dijk's defence, it is the sort of thing that goes on all the time and it works both ways. You can see within the area some of the Palace players holding Liverpool players in the box.

You saw a lot of it. It happens to Mohamed Salah all over the pitch and Liverpool get very irate about the fact very few free-kicks are given against opposition players when they hold Salah. It's one of those sorts of things that looks bad, it certainly doesn't drop you onto the turf like Guehi goes down.

If they did start giving those decisions we would see a lot of them and then you would be in a situation where pretty much every single time someone is in a penalty box, you would be able to pick out two or three instances where that was happening. It is one of them, I can understand why Palace are frustrated but I think if it was the other way round and Liverpool got a penalty for that they would be thinking it was very, very soft and it will keep on happening a lot more.

You saw how quickly VAR checked it and let it go, it is the sort of thing as well that we don't want VAR to get involved in. A lot of people get frustrated about it re-reffing the game, you don't want them coming in and intervening every time there is a corner and free-kick. I think Liverpool may have got away with one but it is not the worst decision you've ever seen.

Isaac Johnson

This is a classic case of ‘which tinted glasses are you wearing?’. Liverpool will argue Guehi was never getting to the ball while Palace will be adamant they are hard done by.

But I have to agree with the final Premier League decision. Admittedly there is an argument regarding whether it was “sustained holding” but Guehi was never getting to the ball and it wasn’t a clear and obvious error.

The problem is such decisions have been given previously already this season. The lack of consistency is troublesome but natural - each referee is going to interpret the rules slightly differently while VAR faces the same issue just in slow motion. For me, the VAR got it right on this occasion.

James Quinlan

It is great that the Premier League provides clarity on decisions now - and so quickly too - as to stamp out any confusion. It has to be said that the call of Simon Hooper and VAR here is a sound one, as we can't be going and giving penalties for everything.

There is no guarantee that Guehi beats Alisson to the cross coming into the box nor does Van Dijk pull him to the ground so ruggedly, therefore it can't be judged as clearly preventing the defender from sticking the ball in the back of the net.

The only problem there is to be made of it is if in a game later this afternoon or on another weekend, a similar decision is ruled in favour of the attacking side. That though isn't on Liverpool, that is entirely on those making the decisions.

Bruna Reis

I think the decision to not award Crystal Palace a penalty in the second half was the right call. However, it’s also fair to say that penalties have been given for far less than that and the consistency needs to be improved.

With that said, from the angle shown, it’s clear to see that Van Dijk did hold onto Guehi’s arm, which prevented him from going for the ball. But for me, that was a soft contact and we see that there is also a slight delay in Guehi going down, which may explain the decision to not award a penalty.

Football is a contact sport and there will always be little contact like this in games. However, you wouldn’t want to see little things like this be awarded as a free-kick either.

Kieran Horn

Penalties have been given for less contact than the pull from Van Dijk on Guehi, but for me, there are two reasons why it was not given. Firstly, though the Palace defender had got beyond his counterpart, he had absolutely no chance of getting to the ball with Trevoh Chalobah's header several yards away.

Secondly, if there was an action from Van Dijk that showed him clearly pulling back Guehi, then he would absolutely have a case. However, the angles only showed him holding onto Guehi and preventing him from advancing further, an action that most defenders do frequently.

The Netherlands international has absolutely taken a huge risk but to me, Simon Hooper and David Coote have got the decision right, though Palace and Liverpool's Premier League title rivals will certainly not feel that way.

Jake Stokes

I think the Video Assistant Referee made the correct call to not give a penalty, but it was reckless 'defending' from Virgil van Dijk. As much as I'd like to see officials clamp down on these types of scenarios – where players are fouled but, because it's in the box, a penalty isn't given – there would be numerous spot-kicks every week!

That's not to say football shouldn't be a contact sport, because it is. I'm talking about big tackles and strong aerial duels, not pulling on an opposition player's arm. If Van Dijk did what he did to Marc Guehi outside the 18-yard box, most referees would award a free-kick – and that's the problem.

Isaac Seelochan

There is no doubt in my mind that Van Dijk got away with one. We see these incidents every week and a lot of the time they're given.

I do acknowledge that there could be penalties awarded on a regular basis if similar scenarios were penalised and we don't want that. However, it could also see defenders stop doing it and that wouldn't be a bad thing.

Join our WhatsApp community, sign up to a newsletter or listen to our podcasts HERE

Story Saved
You can find this story in  My Bookmarks.Or by navigating to the user icon in the top right.