Do players have to dive to win penalties?

November 03, 2026 • 0 • min read

Table of Contents

Do players have to dive to win penalties?

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Jurrien Timber grabbed Alexander Isak's shirt, but VAR decided the incident did not warrant an intervention.
Isak stayed on his feet and did not appeal, unlike Calvin Bassey in Fulham's penalty against Sunderland.
Shirt pulling is only a foul when it impedes an opponent's movement.

Liverpool were left frustrated after Alexander Isak appeared to be denied a clear opportunity to equalise against Arsenal, with Jurrien Timber pulling the striker's shirt inside the penalty area.

The incident went unnoticed by referee Andy Madley, whilst VAR official Stuart Attwell decided there was not enough evidence to recommend an on-field review.

But the decision has raised a familiar question in the Premier League: do players need to go to ground or appeal loudly to get a penalty?

What happened between Timber and Isak?

Liverpool were chasing an equaliser when Bradley Barcola delivered a cross into the Arsenal penalty area.

Isak looked ready to meet the ball with his head, but the Sweden international could not make contact. The ball drifted out of play, and the striker simply turned away to prepare for the goal-kick.

At first glance, there appeared to be little to discuss.

Replays, however, showed Timber holding a handful of Isak's shirt as the Liverpool forward attempted to reach the cross.

The shirt pull raised questions about whether the Arsenal defender had prevented Isak from playing the ball.

Yet neither Madley nor Attwell intervened, and Liverpool were denied the opportunity to equalise from the penalty spot.

How is this not a penalty??? Timber clearly pulls Isak’s shirt this is a disgrace PGMOL CHEATS AGAIN https://t.co/IC7ugkI1kP
— Danis (@DanisMCFC) November 1, 2026

Why did VAR not intervene?

Under the Premier League's VAR protocol, a video review is not intended to correct every possible mistake. Intervention is reserved for clear and obvious errors involving a penalty, a goal, a direct red card or mistaken identity.

The key issue in Isak's case was not whether Timber grabbed his shirt. Replays showed that he did.

Instead, the question was whether the holding was sufficiently clear and had a significant enough impact on Isak to warrant a penalty.

Shirt pulling is not automatically a foul. The Laws of the Game state that holding occurs when a player's contact with an opponent's body or equipment impedes their movement.

The effect of the contact therefore matters.

At full speed, the incident appeared less significant than it did in slow motion. The hold was relatively brief, and Isak did not appeal or make an obvious attempt to draw the referee's attention to it.

Those factors may have influenced the VAR's decision.

Why Liverpool's penalty appeal was compared with Fulham's

The Isak incident drew comparisons with a similar situation involving Sunderland and Fulham earlier in the season.

During the February match, Harry Wilson delivered a free-kick into Sunderland's penalty area. Goalkeeper Robin Roefs punched the ball clear, whilst Fulham defender Calvin Bassey went to ground after a shirt pull by Brian Brobbey.

Bassey immediately appealed to referee Craig Pawson.

The on-field officials did not award a penalty, but VAR official Tony Harrington identified the shirt pull and recommended an on-field review.

Pawson subsequently awarded Fulham a spot-kick.

The two incidents shared several similarities: a shirt pull inside the penalty area, an attacker attempting to play the ball and an initial decision not to award a penalty.

The difference was that Bassey went to ground and appealed, whilst Isak did neither.

That contrast has fuelled criticism of the officiating and raised questions about whether players are being rewarded for exaggerating contact.

Do players need to appeal to win penalties?

Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola was frustrated by the decision and suggested that Isak would have been awarded a penalty had he gone to ground.

The answer is you have to dive, if you don't dive they won't call it.

His comments reflected a wider concern among players and managers that failing to make a clear appeal can sometimes work against an attacking player.

However, there is an important distinction between appealing for a genuine foul and deliberately exaggerating contact.

Players are expected to make the referee aware of an infringement, but they should not need to dive to receive a decision.

The challenge for officials is to identify genuine holding regardless of whether the affected player falls to the ground.

Why Premier League VAR decisions remain controversial

The Premier League has maintained a high threshold for VAR intervention, with officials encouraged to avoid unnecessary reviews and lengthy stoppages.

UEFA referees' chief Roberto Rosetti has also expressed concern about the number of reviews in football, warning that players can attempt to manipulate the process by exaggerating contact.

The Premier League has historically recorded fewer VAR interventions than other major European leagues.

After nine rounds of the current season, the number of subjective reviews was reported to be 14, matching the same stage of the previous campaign.

That approach is intended to preserve the authority of the on-field referee and prevent VAR from becoming a tool for re-refereeing every incident.

However, it also creates difficult situations such as the one involving Isak.

If the referee misses a potential foul and VAR decides the contact does not meet the threshold for intervention, the original decision stands.

Was Liverpool denied a penalty?

The incident involving Isak and Timber remains a subjective decision.

There was clear evidence of a shirt pull, but the officials had to determine whether it significantly impeded the Liverpool striker.

The lack of an appeal, the relatively brief nature of the hold and the high threshold for VAR intervention all appear to have contributed to the decision.

Iraola may feel that Isak was penalised for not making more of the contact, but the wider issue is whether referees can consistently identify holding offences without relying on a player's reaction.

The incident is another reminder that VAR can only correct clear and obvious errors. It cannot eliminate every controversial decision in football.