Slot says VAR has gone against Liverpool - is he right?

Media caption,

'I wasn't surprised' - Slot critical of overturned Liverpool penalty

It could have been very different for Arne Slot's Liverpool against Paris St-Germain on Tuesday night.

Trailing 2-0 from the first leg, the Reds were given a 64th-minute spot-kick which might have transformed the tie.

Then the video assistant referee (VAR) stepped in to tell referee Maurizio Mariani he had made a mistake.

For Slot, it was the story of his season.

The Dutchman feels his team have conceded penalties in similar circumstances, with little contact but no VAR intervention.

Five minutes after play restarted, Ousmane Dembele scored and PSG went on to win 2-0 on the night, and 4-0 on aggregate.

"I'm not surprised," Slot said. "So many decisions have gone against us this season.

"It's quite simple. If the referee doesn't give a penalty the VAR would have never overturned it.

"I've seen so many soft penalties given, but people say VAR can't interfere because there is contact. That is what we clearly see."

Is Slot right to feel hard done by?

What happened at Anfield?

The controversial moment came Alexis Mac Allister went to claim a loose ball inside the area.

The Argentina international placed his body in front of PSG defender Willian Pacho, before going to ground.

Mariani pointed to the spot but the VAR, Marco di Bello, very quickly sent him to the pitchside monitor.

A VAR intervention was controversial because there was contact by Pacho on the back of Mac Allister's boot.

You can argue whether that was enough to cause the Liverpool player to fall over, but usually contact means there should be no clear and obvious error.

So why might there have been an intervention?

The bedrock of a review is how the referee describes the incident to the VAR.

Did the referee give it for a push? Or a trip?

We will never know, but the description had to be of material difference to what the pictures showed for the VAR to get involved.

In fairness to Slot, he did concede that his side were fortunate in the first leg. A PSG penalty was overturned and another claim could have gone to a VAR review.

Is Slot right about soft penalties?

Slot referenced two incidents in his news conference, but hinted he had a much longer list.

One was a penalty conceded at Brentford. A free-kick had been awarded for a soft foul by Virgil van Dijk on Dango Ouattara.

The VAR intervened in to tell the referee that the foul happened inside the area, which made it a penalty.

It was one of those boot-on-boot challenges which referee Tim Robinson probably felt did not meet the threshold for a penalty.

Yet it was not a clear and obvious error to give a foul, so a soft free-kick became a penalty by default. Slot had a point.

There is a difference with Tuesday's incident. Van Dijk was clearly making a tackle, whereas contact from Pacho seemed to be incidental rather than a challenge on an opponent.

Slot also referenced a penalty awarded to Leeds United at Elland Road.

He suggested this had stayed with the on-field call but he must have misremembered - there was a VAR intervention to award the spot-kick after Ibrahima Konate brought down Wilfried Gnonto.

Have Liverpool been hard done by?

You can understand why Slot might feel a little aggrieved.

Liverpool have, along with Brighton, conceded three VAR penalties in the Premier League this season - more than all other teams.

As well as the spot-kicks conceded at Brentford and Leeds, goalkeeper Giorgi Mamardashvili was penalised for bringing down Manchester City's Jeremy Doku in November at the Etihad.

Slot's side have conceded one spot-kick not given through VAR - in the reverse meeting with City when Matheus Nunes was bundled over by Alisson.

Liverpool have been awarded only two penalties - neither through VAR and, coincidentally, both against Burnley.

Only Aston Villa and Tottenham have had fewer, and they are yet to get a spot-kick.

In general VAR overturns, Liverpool have had six interventions against them. Only Fulham, on nine, have suffered from more.

Liverpool have had five negative goal outcomes - two disallowed for them and three conceded. Again, only the Cottagers come out worse on seven goals.

Looking at net VAR interventions - those in favour minus those against - only Everton (-4) have a worse outcome than Liverpool (-3).

But there are also controversial decisions which are not included in VAR stats.

These are the incidents Slot may have been referring to.

For instance, there was Florian Wirtz's penalty claim against Arsenal in January after he was challenged by Leandro Trossard.

The Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel voted 3:2 that the on-field decision of no penalty was correct, which shows it was a borderline call.

In the game at Brentford in October, there was a 3:2 vote in favour of no spot-kick for a challenge by Nathan Collins on Cody Gakpo.

But it can go the other way too. Liverpool might count themselves fortunate after Konate's challenge on City's Omar Marmoush in February. That was also a 3:2 vote in favour of no spot-kick.

We have heard City boss Pep Guardiola and Manchester United manager Michael Carrick bemoan their luck with referees this season.

Yet as far as VAR decisions go, only Chelsea have a more favourable record this season than those two teams.

Looking at the statistics, maybe Slot does have more reason to complain.