Liverpool Unimpressed With Premier League's 'Contradictory' Response to VAR Questions
By Tom Gott
Liverpool have expressed their frustration towards what they deem to be 'contradictory' reports from the Premier League on why Jordan Pickford was not sent off for his challenge on Virgil van Dijk.
The Everton goalkeeper was guilty of a poor challenge on Van Dijk during the early stages of Saturday's 2-2 draw which has left the Dutchman needing surgery, but despite VAR looking at the incident, Pickford was not punished.
That led Liverpool to ask the Premier League to investigate the use of VAR and how Pickford managed to escape a booking. However, as noted by The Telegraph, the Reds have received a handful of different responses.
A senior Premier League official met with Liverpool and admitted that VAR official David Coote was so preoccupied with checking to see whether Van Dijk was offside that he simply forgot to check for a red card.
The Mail go further to claim that Coote 'didn't know' he could recommend Pickford be sent off, thinking that the offside nullified any possible action against the keeper.
That stance, which was later backed up publicly, is believed to have come directly from Coote, but it was later undermined by managing director of the Professional Game and Match Officials Limited Mike Riley.
Riley sent a letter to the club claiming that a check for serious foul play was conducted after the offside decision, and Liverpool fear that league officials may well be panicking after learning the severity of Van Dijk's injury.
The Times add that Liverpool will again be told that the incident was checked and Pickford would have only ever received a yellow card as the belief is that he made a genuine attempt to get the ball.
The check on a red card was not relayed to fans watching on TV as VAR was also looking at a possible penalty and an offside.
There is a formal process for clubs to complain about decisions made, but as of now, Liverpool have not gone down that road and have instead written to the Premier League to not only question the decision, but question the contradictory explanations of the decision.