Brighton penalty debate: why Saliba’s ‘touch on the ball’ still equals a foul — and why VAR was right

A viral post from @AFCAMDEN reignited debate about a Brighton penalty against Arsenal, arguing that William Saliba’s touch on the ball should negate any foul. A wave of replies accused PGMOL of inconsistency, citing other incidents, including Mohamed Salah’s. Cutting through the noise: IFAB Law 12 is explicit — contacting the ball first does not automatically cancel a foul if the opponent is then tripped or clattered. VAR’s job is not to re-referee, but to correct clear and obvious errors relative to the on-field call. On those grounds, the decision and the process were consistent with the law and protocol.

Primary context:

• Tweet by @AFCAMDEN referencing a Brighton penalty decision involving William Saliba and criticism of PGMOL.
• Representative replies from users @akech_andrew, @LoicCodes, @JeremiahIPriddy, @_henwall, @DitheringWenger, @Officialmister2, @Mochimanne, @blockxs, @Jez0107, @PD_1987uk, @theretrogrill, @xtweet2023, @taya_basilio, @MadGunnerst, @GNRSAURUS.
• Framework: IFAB Laws of the Game 2024/25 (Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct) and IFAB VAR Protocol.

Remember when they said it didn’t matter that Saliba got a touch on the ball but it was still a penalty @ Brighton? Fuck the PGMOL!

@AFCAMDEN

Impact Analysis

The noise around PGMOL after high-profile incidents has a predictable arc: a clip trends, selective freeze-frames circulate, and a narrative of systemic bias hardens within hours. But the laws and protocols don’t bend to timelines. Law 12 is clear: a defender who plays the ball and subsequently trips, impedes, or endangers an opponent can still commit a foul. It is the total action — angle, speed, point of contact, and outcome — that is judged. The ‘got the ball’ mantra is a relic of pre-VAR folklore, not the modern law.

VAR’s remit matters even more. If the referee’s on-field decision was penalty, the threshold to overturn is “clear and obvious” — a higher bar than simply preferring a different interpretation. Small glances on the ball do not immunize a challenge when the follow-through clearly takes the attacker. Conversely, in other matches where the on-field call is no penalty, VAR needs conclusive evidence to upgrade. Different calls can both be correct when viewed through their respective thresholds.

In the public square, this nuance gets flattened into accusations of favoritism. That harms trust and inflames discourse, but it doesn’t reflect how incidents are graded by independent Key Match Incident (KMI) panels weekly. The net effect: clubs and fanbases expend energy on conspiracies rather than adjusting to the consistent direction of travel — protecting attackers, sanctioning careless follow-throughs, and using VAR sparingly to avoid re-refereeing.

Reaction

Social reaction was swift and combustible. Many Arsenal supporters framed the incident as emblematic of perceived double standards, echoing lines like “nobody would check this against any other team” and “they couldn’t even confirm Salah touched the ball yesterday.” A few pushed the narrative into outright allegations of corruption, while others called for investigative journalism into PGMOL or for club representatives to challenge decisions in press conferences.

There was also frustration about the stoppage that nullified Bukayo Saka’s subsequent possession — a misunderstanding of VAR procedure. Once the on-field decision is a defensive foul in the box, the referee will halt a developing attack; if the check upholds the penalty, play restarts from the spot. If overturned to no penalty, a dropped ball follows. That can feel unfair in real time, but it is protocol-driven, not discretionary chaos.

Notably, some cooler heads reminded fellow fans that touching the ball alone is not exculpatory under Law 12. But they were drowned out by the more incendiary takes. The tone underscores a broader trend: match clips are consumed as fan ammunition rather than officiating case studies. Without acknowledging the on-field call and VAR threshold, cross-match comparisons (like the Salah reference) often become apples-to-oranges debates.

Social reactions

Yeah… they must hate you….

Toon Raider (@ToonRaider_NUFC)

We've had worse stop crying Gabriel should have been sent off the ref favored you guys too

tomiwa (@tomiwakingy)

They are just making sh*t up to engineer the outcomes. It’s just not fair to the teams that are trying their sporting best to get ahead only to get constantly and corruptly denied by idiots in black who have never successfully kicked goat shyte in their lives. Smh

Tiolu (@Tioluwa69)

Prediction

Expect PGMOL to stand firm. The KMI review will likely categorize the incident as “supportable penalty” if the on-field decision was penalty, citing careless or reckless contact after playing the ball. The Monday audio release, if provided, should reveal the VAR’s checklist: point of contact, intensity, consequence, and whether the defender’s follow-through trips the attacker. That clarity tends to calm the fringes, even if it won’t pacify entrenched skeptics.

Clubs will quietly brief players: playing the ball does not grant immunity; control your follow-through in the area. Coaches will tailor messaging to reduce lunging contacts where attackers are favored by current interpretations. The league, for its part, may escalate comms — more explainer clips, more alignment with IFAB language — emphasizing the two-tiered standard: uphold on-field calls unless clearly wrong; use the monitor to correct only egregious misses.

Fan discourse will split along familiar lines, but expect a gradual acceptance that the “got the ball” defense doesn’t survive modern officiating. The next time a similar tackle crops up, VAR will apply the same framework. Consistency, not unanimity, is the realistic outcome.

Latest today

• Wojciech Szczęsny embraces ‘secondary’ role: Juventus veteran vows to stay ready in Di Gregorio era Wojciech Szczęsny embraces ‘secondary’ role: Juventus veteran vows to stay ready in Di Gregorio era
• Barcelona poised to strike on 2026 expiries: Guéhi, Upamecano and Vlahović headline smart shortlist Barcelona poised to strike on 2026 expiries: Guéhi, Upamecano and Vlahović headline smart shortlist
• Szczęsny reveals Barça’s goalkeeper plan: Joan García targeted as Ter Stegen’s heir Szczęsny reveals Barça’s goalkeeper plan: Joan García targeted as Ter Stegen’s heir
• Szczęsny: Lamine Yamal should enjoy football — with passion and professionalism he can be the best Szczęsny: Lamine Yamal should enjoy football — with passion and professionalism he can be the best

Conclusion

Strip away the tribal noise and the picture is straightforward. Law 12 penalizes careless or reckless challenges regardless of a slight touch on the ball; safety and consequence matter more than first contact. VAR, bound by a high threshold, asks one question: was the on-field decision clearly and obviously wrong? In this case, it wasn’t. That’s not bias — it’s the protocol fans claim to want when their team benefits and reject when it doesn’t.

Cross-referencing incidents from other matches without accounting for initial calls, angles, and thresholds is poor analysis. The Salah comparison is illustrative: if the on-field decisions differ, the VAR’s evidentiary bar differs. As for the stoppage that denied Saka a dangerous break, that’s the inevitable trade-off of post-event correction — unsatisfying, but codified.

We can demand better communication and faster checks without conjuring conspiracies. If supporters internalize the modern standard — ball touch is not a shield; follow-through counts; VAR is for clear errors — the debate becomes sharper and fairer. Until then, expect more heat than light.