Arsenal receive baffling VAR verdict on Sunderland penalty incident as Premier League explain 3-2 vote

The Gunners triumphed 2-0 at the Stadium of Light courtesy of second-half goals from Bruno Guimaraes and Bukayo Saka, but the outcome could have been significantly different thanks to a highly controversial incident. Referee John Brooks awarded Sunderland a penalty soon after the restart for a perceived foul by Ezri Konsa on Daniel Ballard, and the VAR agreed with the official's on-field decision.

David Raya produced a terrific save from Enzo Le Fee's penalty shortly before Arsenal went up the other end and broke the deadlock through Guimaraes, but Arteta could not celebrate his side's victory due to his fury over the penalty decision. Arteta slammed Brooks's decision as "unacceptable" and "impossible", claiming that Ballard performed a "judo roll" on Konsa rather than the Arsenal defender committing a penalty offence.

Arsenal: Why was VAR right not to overturn incorrect referee decision? The penalty call was referred to the Premier League's KMI panel, a five-person panel made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one Pro Ref - formerly PGMOL - representative.

On Wednesday morning,the Premier League announcedthat the KMI voted 5-0 that Sunderland should not have been awarded the penalty for the Konsa-Ballard incident. However, while the panel voted unanimously that Brooks made an error, they also voted 3-2 that the VAR room were right not to recommend an on-field review, or overturn Brooks's incorrect decision.

In the same statement, the Premier League explained that while Brooks made an error, it did not meet the 'clear and obvious' threshold for VAR intervention. "Panellists assess the Referee's decision first, before considering the VAR's actions.

It is also important to note that the Premier League operates with a high threshold for VAR intervention," the Premier League explained. "In this instance, the panel concluded that, although the Referee made an error and should not have awarded a penalty kick, the decision did not meet the threshold for a clear and obvious error.

Therefore, it was not deemed a situation in which the VAR should have intervened. In this instance, the Premier League should have explained why the Ballard-Konsa incident did not amount to a clear and obvious error, and also review the threshold for 'clear and obvious' itself.

At a time when referees are already under more scrutiny than ever before, such nonsensical decisions and explanations are doing Pro Ref no favours.