To dive or not to dive? Football's big dilemma

Bradley Barcola delivered a cross into the Arsenal penalty area, with Liverpool striker Alexander Isak seemingly ready to nod home an equaliser.

The Sweden international just failed to get his head on the ball, and it drifted out of play.

Isak simply turned around to make his way back up the field in readiness for the goal-kick.

Nothing to see here.

Or was there?

Replays showed that Jurrien Timber had a handful of Isak's shirt. Surely that prevented the striker from being able to play the ball?

Yet Isak did not complain. Without watching those replays you would have no inkling there was a potential penalty.

Referee Andy Madley did not see anything. The video assistant referee (VAR), Stuart Attwell, decided there was not enough in it for a review.

"There is a clear grab of the shirt," Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola said after the 1-0 defeat by the Gunners at Anfield on Sunday.

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

When players do dive, they get criticised.

Take Alexis Mac Allister, described as "embarrassing" by Jamie Carragher for throwing himself to the ground, claiming he was headbutted by Noni Madueke in the second half.

You can understand Iraola's frustrations at not getting the penalty, so why did the VAR not get involved?

And do players really have to dive to get decisions?

Cast your mind back to a game between Sunderland and Fulham in February.

Harry Wilson swings a free-kick into the penalty area. The ball flies through to Sunderland goalkeeper Robin Roefs, who punches it to safety.

But on the ground is Calvin Bassey, who immediately gets up and appeals to referee Craig Pawson, arms outstretched. The Fulham player wants a spot-kick for a shirt pull by Brian Brobbey.

Nothing is picked up on-field but the VAR, Tony Harrington, identifies a tug on the shirt and sends the referee to the monitor to give a penalty.

There are striking similarities to Timber on Isak.

One resulted in a VAR penalty, but the other did not.

One player went to ground, but the other did not.

Rather than to dive, perhaps there is a better description of what Isak had to do: give the referee and the VAR a decision to make.

"Arsenal got lucky," Danny Murphy said on Match of the Day. "If Isak maybe makes a bit more of it. I hate to see players exaggerate, but he's going to score. It's a big moment in the game."

Shirt pulling is not in itself an automatic foul. The determination is always about how it affects the opponent.

As the law says: "A holding offence occurs only when a player's contact with an opponent's body or equipment impedes the opponent's movement."

Indeed, the 'coat hanger effect', when a player's shirt is pulled well away from the body, is more likely to be penalised.

Still, impact is crucial. And if Isak gives the impression there has been no impact, that is going to be a factor.

Former Premier League assistant referee Darren Cann told BBC Sport: "It has to be sustained holding - some will say it was sustained, some will say it wasn't. But it's interesting that Isak didn't even appeal."

There is some annoyance in refereeing circles that the goalposts keep being moved when analysing decisions.

One moment video officials are being told that the VAR should not use slow-motion replays. And then, as was the case with Isak, slow-motion replays are used as the case for the prosecution.

There seems to be far less in the incident at full speed, that the hold of the shirt is more fleeting with minimal impact.

With the high bar for intervention this season, this may go down as an on-field error but not to the threshold for a VAR intervention.

"If he goes to the floor, they call the penalty 100%," Iraola said. "It shouldn't be like this but it is what it is."

The Spaniard's comments are largely true, of course, as we saw with Bassey. But that is not always the case, especially this season.

In the summer, Uefa referees' chief Roberto Rosetti said that there were "too many reviews", which had led to attempts to play for or earn video decisions.

There is now a greater focus on players who dive or embellish contact to 'win' penalties.

The number of interventions in the Premier League has historically been the lowest in Europe, which is probably why the number of subjective reviews (14) is exactly the same as last season after nine rounds.

And with the high bar, a small amount of contact with no appeal is unlikely to lead to a review.

The flipside is why players should have to appeal? After all, this is not cricket. And we've seen plenty of surprise interventions where no player has asked for, say, a handball.

With only one missed VAR intervention, according to the Key Match Incidents Panel, in the Premier League this season, the video referees will argue they are getting the balance right.