Everton should have been awarded a penalty in their 1-0 defeat by Arsenal on 20 December, according to the Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel.

The Gunners were leading 1-0 in the 57th minute at the Hill Dickinson Stadium when William Saliba and Everton striker Thierno Barry clashed inside the area.

Barry got to the ball first, but his boot was kicked by Arsenal's French defender.

The panel voted 3-2 that the on-field decision by referee Sam Barrott to not award a penalty was incorrect.

It also voted 3-2 that video assistant referee (VAR) Michael Salisbury should have sent the match official to the monitor to change his decision.

Three panel members noted "Saliba carelessly kicks Barry with no contact on the ball" and they felt it was a clear and obvious error.

Two panellists supported the no-penalty call because "there was not enough impact and a delayed reaction".

Everton manager David Moyes was confused why other similar incidents had resulted in spot-kicks.

In particular he referenced a penalty given by the on-field referee to Fulham against Nottingham Forest two days later. The panel unanimously supported this spot-kick decision.

"I was half-choking last night when I saw the decision given [to Fulham] and ours wasn't," said Moyes. "It feels as though certain clubs get those decisions and other clubs don't."

Each KMI Panel is made up of five members. Three are former players or coaches, plus there is one representative each from the Premier League and Professional Game Match Officials.

VAR right over Gordon decision against Chelsea

The panel also voted the VAR Peter Bankes was correct not to advise that Newcastle should be given a spot-kick in their match against Chelsea on 20 December.

Head coach Eddie Howe said the Magpies were refused a "stonewall" penalty when Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah barged Anthony Gordon to the ground.

Newcastle led 2-1 at the time, and the game finished 2-2. The club said they would be "seeking clarification" about the decision.

The panel felt referee Andy Madley should have awarded a spot-kick (3-2), but it didn't reach the threshold for a VAR intervention (3-2).

Those in favour of a penalty said "Chalobah makes no challenge for the ball and makes reckless shoulder, hip and leg contact".

But those against believed it was "robust shoulder-to-shoulder contact with the ball in playing distance".

Panel supports Simons dismissal and Ekitike goal

Tottenham boss Thomas Frank was furious after his side fell to a 2-1 loss at home to Liverpool on 20 December.

Spurs saw Xavi Simons sent off on a VAR review for a challenge on Virgil van Dijk.

Frank also felt Liverpool's second goal should have been ruled out for a push by Hugo Ekitike on Cristian Romero.

Spurs captain Romero was then sent off for a second yellow card in stoppage time.

The panel delivered unanimous verdicts that the Simons red card and the Ekitike goal were both correct.

On the Ekitike incident it stated "there's not enough contact for a foul, particularly given the high threshold for penalising contact".

Romero's second yellow card was supported 4-1.

Centre-back Micky van de Ven's attempted block on the shot for Alexander Isak's goal, which saw the Liverpool striker suffer a broken leg, was not deemed a red-card offence to be considered by the panel as a Key Match Incident. (BBC)

Update news