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

The Premier League's Key Match Incidents panel has unanimously voted that Sunderland should not have been awarded a penalty against Arsenal earlier this month, but that the VAR was right not to intervene.

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.

Sunderland vs. Arsenal: Why was VAR right not to overturn incorrect referee decision?

The conversation between the referee and VAR room alleged that Konsa was facing the wrong way, but replays showed that the Englishman's eyes were on the ball, and Ballard gripped his shirt and pulled him to the floor.

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 announced that 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."

Baffling Arsenal penalty decision raises further questions for Pro Ref

For the KMI panel to vote unanimously that an official made a mistake, only for them to also conclude that the VAR not overturning said mistake was the correct one, is a baffling verdict that raises further questions around officiating processes.

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.