Liverpool Handed New Penalty Verdict as Ex-Referee Makes Mohamed Salah Claim

In a heated Liverpool vs. Manchester City Premier League clash that ended 1-2 to City, controversy swirled around several key decisions, particularly penalty claims involving Mohamed Salah. Liverpool manager Arne Slot voiced strong frustration post-match, labeling a shirt-pull on Salah as a "clear red card" opportunity that was ignored.[3]

The primary flashpoint was in the second half at 0-0, when Salah broke through on a one-v-one with the goalkeeper. Marc Guéhi hauled him down outside the penalty area. Referee Pawson awarded a free-kick and yellow card, with VAR upholding the call, citing a covering defender and ruling out denial of a goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO).[1] Slot called it "so obvious," prioritizing it over other incidents like City's late penalty.[3]

Another contentious moment came in the 43rd minute: From a free-kick, Salah went down in the box under contact from Bernardo Silva's arm tug after a Van Dijk header. Salah protested vehemently, but officials waved play on, deeming it no foul despite Liverpool's appeals.[2][4] A YouTube analysis highlighted it as a "clear penalty" denied, fueling fan outrage.[2]

City's winning penalty in the 90th+10th minute saw Alisson challenge Matheus Nunes late, missing the ball—correctly awarded per VAR review.[1] Chaos ensued late: Rayan Cherki's goal was disallowed after Erling Haaland pulled Dominik Szoboszlai's shirt, but Szoboszlai was then red-carded for his prior holding offence denying a goal.[1][3] Slot questioned the Alisson penalty's consistency, noting he'd demand it if roles were reversed, but fixated on Salah's non-call.[3]

Ex-referee insights, echoed in analyses, back the on-field decisions: Guéhi's foul wasn't DOGSO due to cover, Silva's touch minimal, and VAR interventions spot-on.[1][4] Liverpool rued missed chances, with Slot lamenting referee Pawson's choices in a match defined by tight margins and VAR scrutiny. Fans and pundits debate if Salah was robbed, but official verdicts stand firm.[1][2]

(Word count: 298)