Arsenal have once again found themselves right at the centre of refereeing controversy. Not for the first time this season, either, it's William Saliba in the spotlight.

The defender was penalised for fouling Joao Pedro in Saturday's 1-1 draw against Brighton on the south coast. After taking the lead in the first half through Ethan Nwaneri, Pedro hit back from the spot, but only after Arsenal's players had their say.

Going down clutching his head after a challenge from Saliba inside the penalty area, referee Anthony Taylor awarded a penalty, with it coming from a fairly unique situation. Mikel Arteta described it as one of the worst decisions he had seen, while the reaction online and from pundits or the wider media has been split.

Earlier in the season it was the Frenchman who was sent-off away at AFC Bournemouth after only being given a yellow card, initially. Already, Arsenal had seen Declan Rice dismissed - for kicking the ball away and delaying the restart - in what was the reverse fixture against Brighton.

The Gunners have never been far away from complaints and annoyance towards officials. This is just the latest incident that has left them angered. Here, football.london writers give their take on the incident;

Tom Coley

Arsenal will, understandably, feel aggrieved at being heavily punished at the start of the season for the 'delaying the restart' clampdown. This also looks like they are the first to be found guilty of a fairly strange scenario.

A clash of heads usually comes in from a 50-50 via a corner or open-play cross. This, though, is different, and was rightly treated as such. Pedro took the touch - which saw the ball flick up. He is in control of the ball in a way that players cannot be deemed to be in other duels that result in a bang of heads.

As such, Saliba is late on to Pedro. It is a foul. Had the ball been on the floor, with Pedro nipping in ahead to get a touch away from the defender, and then he is tripped, there would be little debate. These are similar but different circumstances.

"But Saliba gets a touch on the ball," is another argument. He does, but that comes after Pedro has taken a touch, though. There is still a foul there, where Saliba tries to win the ball and misses, coming through late.

It's unfortunate that it's Arsenal again, that it's Pedro again, and that it's Brighton again. But this is a foul.

READ MORE: Saliba head clash, Gabriel penalty shout, inconsistency - Brighton vs Arsenal referee review

READ MORE: Arsenal receive new William Saliba penalty referee verdict as surprise Joao Pedro point made

READ MORE: Ethan Nwaneri told what he must keep doing at Arsenal as Mikel Arteta waits for injury update

Cash O'Sullivan

It's not often I find myself in agreement with the likes of Danny Murphy and Tony Cascarino when it comes to the modern game, but I cannot fathom how this incident can be perceived as a foul and a penalty.

For a clash of heads to be deemed a foul, the player making the challenge has to be deemed reckless or the other player has to be in control of the ball. Nothing about Saliba's actions can possibly be deemed reckless, and I don't care how technically good Joao Pedro is - as soon as Saliba gets a touch on the ball (if you make a movement for a ball that is not the same as the ball hitting you) then it means he isn't in control - especially surrounded by Arsenal players.

Earlier in the day, Dejan Kulusevski was deemed not to foul Anthony Gordon despite leaving him with a bloody nose as that was seen to be accidental. I cannot wrap my head around how blasting someone in the face with a shoulder isn't a penalty, but brushing heads after going for the same ball is.

Add to the mix that the correct head injury protocol wasn't followed, in that Pedro should have been directed off the pitch for a head injury assessment but was instead allowed to stay on and take the penalty, the whole thing is another example of how the Premier League has no idea how to deal with head contact incidents.

At the end of the day, Arsenal should have done more to win the game, but it is getting incredibly tiresome this season to be constantly flabbergasted at refereeing decisions across the league.

Joe Doyle

I think it's one of those decisions that's almost unique in football. Clashes of heads happen all the time, but usually it's when players are jumping and contesting a ball, not when someone can argue they've got it under control.

I can see both sides of why it was given and why it shouldn't have been - for the former, Joao Pedro did knock it past Saliba and got a thump to the head for his troubles; for the latter, the ball does hit Saliba (rather than Saliba hitting it), changing the direction - how much contact on the ball is enough?

It also probably falls into the category of those which are never going to be overturned by VAR - regardless of what decision is made on the pitch - due to the subjectivity of the decision. And also the type of decision you'd hate to go against you but would be miffed if it didn't go for you.

I suppose where you make the decision on it is whether or not you think Saliba actually got the ball - because he certainly caught Pedro, I don't think there's any doubt about that.

For me, it's a soft one - and perhaps the exact type of incident which would be better-served with the award of an indirect free-kick rather than a penalty. For some instances, a penalty is just too big of a reward for a crime that has been committed - and that's my view on this one. Nobody is going to be happy with either a penalty or no offence, so everyone may as well be miserable with an indirect free-kick.

READ MORE: Arsenal duo break silence after William Saliba penalty controversy with clear five-word message

READ MORE: New Sky Sports footage reveals Arsenal penalty claim vs Brighton that VAR 'missed'

READ MORE: Gary Lineker makes ‘truth’ claim on MOTD over Brighton’s controversial penalty vs Arsenal

Sam Truelove

What happened on Saturday is not often seen on a football pitch. Yet, for me, the decision to award a penalty is the correct one. William Saliba clearly catches Joao Pedro, even if the Frenchman does get a bit of the ball, albeit after Pedro gets there first.

As soon as Anthony Taylor points to the spot, then VAR are never going to overturn it. If Taylor didn't point to the spot, I highly doubt that VAR would send him to the pitch-side monitor. It's simply a decision that could have gone either way.

Arsenal can feel a little hard done by, perhaps, but in my opinion the decision to award a penalty is the right one. The Gunners didn't do enough to win the match at the Amex Stadium - and continuous complaining isn't going to change that.

Lee Wilmot

As a Tottenham fan I love almost nothing more than laughing at Arsenal's misfortune. However, I simply can't get my head around this decision. For me it is madness.

When have we ever seen a mis-timed header be perceived as a foul and a penalty kick? When will we ever see it happen again? No arms or legs were involved, it is simply the missing of a header in the box.

I get the argument that if it was a mistimed tackle it would be a penalty so why should a header be any different, I just have never seen anything like it before and can't understand how it's a penalty.

But it feels like I'm in the minority with that opinion. This is before we bring into the equation that Joao Pedro should not have been on the pitch - given he should have been sent-off for violent conduct against Brentford.