VAR decision defended with Trumpian skill

THE defence of the decision not to award City a penalty at Anfield was something out of the Donald Trump handbook.

The US president has developed a way of telling his followers that black is white, despite what they have seen or heard - and they believe it.

On Monday we had the man charged with implementing the consistently awful video assistant referee (VAR) system into the Premier League employ the same Trumpian technique.

What happened in the sixth minute of the Premier League clash at Anfield was clear. The ball initially span off Bernardo Silva’s arm and travelled a little over eight yards before striking Trent Alexander-Arnold. Replays clearly show that, as the ball strikes Bernardo’s arm, the Liverpool right-back’s arm IS down by his side, but as the ball travels towards him, he lifts it to a 45-degree angle and stops the flight of the ball. If he had not done so, the ball would have travelled to Raheem Sterling, unmarked. Talking about Bernardo’s initial handball is a red herring. Under the rules, a handball in the opposition area cannot be reviewed, unless it leads to a goal. That is a hole in the rules which needs addressing, as it is clearly unfair if an attacker handles the ball onto a defender’s arm, and a penalty results. But as it stands, the only feasible decision VAR could take in that instance was to award a penalty.

Image one - the ball bounces off Bernardo Silva’s arm - note that Trent Alexander-Arnold’s arm is by his side

Image two - by the time the ball reaches Alexander-Arnold and strikes him, his arm has risen to a 45-degree angle

Our two screen grabs of the action conclusively show that there WAS a movement of the arm upwards, and that it DID make Alexander-Arnold’s arm bigger.

It is understandable that referee Michael Oliver might not have seen that, in the heat of the match, but it is unforgivable that the video referee cannot see it, and tell Oliver he got it wrong. Without that, VAR is pointless. To make matters worse, Neil Swarbrick, the man whose job it is to oversee the implementation of VAR in the Premier League said it was the correct decision.

Speaking on BBC Five Live, he said: “That’s the subjective part was it in an unnatural place? When you look at it, at no point does Trent Alexander-Arnold’s arm move towards the ball.

“His body posture ... his arm is there. His arm has got to be somewhere. His arm is slightly away from his body but that is a neutral, natural position for his stance at that moment in time.

“The ball came from a short distance at pace, and just happened to hit that arm. He didn’t move the arm towards the ball, it just hit the arm. Michael Oliver has seen that clearly. That’s what he explained. He said ‘I know it’s hit the arm, but there is no arm movement, it’s come at short distance, I’m comfortable that that’s not deliberate handball.’

“It has to be deliberate in the penalty area to give a penalty.

“Michael deemed it not to be deliberate. The VAR has looked at that, listened to what Michael said, and it absolutely married up.”

Swarbrick also failed to mention the actual letter of the law.

He said it was about whether the arm was “in an unnatural place”.

The law actually states: “It is usually an offence if a player: touches the ball with their hand/ arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger” or when the arm is raised above the head.

From being by his side, Alexander-Arnold’s arm indisputably rises and moves away from his body, therefore making his body ‘unnaturally bigger.’