Andoni Iraola has suggested he will tell his Liverpool players to go to ground when they are fouled in the penalty area after Alexander Isak was denied a spot-kick during Sunday’s defeat by Arsenal.

Liverpool lost 1-0 at Anfield, with Kai Havertz’s first-half goal separating the sides, but the decision not to award a penalty for Jurrien Timber’s shirt-pull on Isak became a major talking point after the final whistle.

Isak attempted to reach Bradley Barcola’s cross but was held back by the Arsenal defender. The Liverpool striker remained on his feet and did not make an immediate appeal, with referee Andy Madley allowing play to continue. VAR official Stuart Attwell reviewed the incident but did not recommend an on-field review.

The Liverpool head coach was left frustrated by the decision, arguing that the contact had prevented Isak from reaching the ball and that the striker’s decision to stay upright should not have counted against him.

“There is a clear grab of the shirt, Alex was just in front of him and was going to head in front of the goal but couldn’t because he grabbed the shirt.

“If he goes to the floor, they call the penalty 100 per cent. It should be like this, but it is what it is. Next time, the managers should tell Alex to go to the floor, otherwise they won’t call it.”

Iraola went further when asked whether players needed to be more willing to go down in such circumstances.

“The answer is you have to dive. If you don’t dive, they won’t call it.”

It was a striking admission from a manager who clearly felt his striker’s attempt to stay on his feet had worked against him. Iraola subsequently confirmed he would advise Isak to go to ground in a similar situation in future.

Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk shared his manager’s frustration, questioning why Isak should have been expected to exaggerate the contact when the incident was visible to the officials and could be reviewed through multiple camera angles.

“I think it was a clear penalty. I’ve seen it back, and I’ve seen it being given.

“We have 50 cameras. Why does he have to complain when there are so many cameras? Everyone has seen it. In the end, it wasn’t given, and we lost the game unfortunately, so well done to Arsenal.”

The incident was not Liverpool’s only penalty appeal during the first half. Cody Gakpo also went to ground following a sustained hold from Christos Tzolis, with VAR reviewing the situation before deciding against intervention.

Iraola accepted the argument for not awarding that particular appeal, suggesting Gakpo was unlikely to reach the ball. However, he questioned the consistency of the reasoning when comparing it with the challenge on Isak.

“The Isak one is a clear penalty, The Gakpo one, I think it’s a sustained holding but I understand their argument and I think they are right when they say the ball was too long in the air and Cody wouldn’t have arrived to the ball.

“But then you’re basically accepting that the first one is a penalty, no? You cannot use the argument in both ways differently.”

The wider issue raised by Iraola’s comments is an uncomfortable one for the game.

Players are routinely criticised for going to ground too easily, making the most of minimal contact or attempting to influence officials. Yet when a player remains upright after an apparent foul, there is an obvious question about whether that decision can inadvertently work against them.

Isak’s reaction was not the one often associated with penalty appeals. He tried to continue towards the ball rather than immediately throwing himself to the ground or appealing for the referee’s attention. Iraola believes that should not make the difference between a penalty being awarded and play continuing.

There is, of course, a distinction between recognising genuine contact and automatically awarding a spot-kick whenever a shirt is pulled. The officials must still judge the significance of the contact and whether it has materially affected the attacking player’s opportunity.

But that is precisely why the incident is likely to remain a talking point. Liverpool’s manager believes the contact prevented Isak from reaching a cross in front of goal, while the decision on the pitch and subsequent VAR review concluded that the threshold for intervention had not been met.

Iraola’s frustration was not simply that Liverpool were denied an opportunity to equalise. It was that the decision appeared to leave his striker with the wrong lesson: that staying on his feet may have cost his team a penalty.

For a game that continues to demand honesty from its players, it is an uncomfortable position to reach.