It's all down to shit referee's, they have var now and not one player has been booked for diving this season as far as I know. It's like the surrounding of referee's it went on for years and still does, at one time they tried to legislate against that, no need the ref has a card in his pocket if four or five players surround you in an aggressive manner book them all, it could be stamped out in two weeks, same with diving.
They brought in the clarification to stop players like Smalling from manhandling attackers at corners. Who was one of the first players to fall foul of the new, improved, clarified law? Wasn't it Sterling, whilst Smalling carried on regardless for a season before being shipped out?
Then they brought in the amendment to say that any touch of the ball by the hand of an attacker is an offence, only for Jesus to become one of the first to have a goal chalked off.
Then they said VAR would be used to retrospectively punish players who are later found to have deceived a referee. Clubs voted to accept VAR on the basis of this, and other promises. Who was the last person punished in the PL for simulation? No, I can't remember one either. It wouldn't surprise me if certain clubs insisted on assurances that this wouldn't be enforced when VAR was introduced.
And now we have the interpretation of foul play. In the context of the Salah penalty, we have this (paraphrased):
"A direct free kick* is awarded if a push is committed, in a careless or reckless manner, or using excessive force."
Also "A direct free kick is awarded if a player holds an opponent or impedes an opponent with contact."
* Or penalty.
So it can be argued that Salah's push on Dias did not in itself merit a foul to City, because it was not careless, reckless or excessively forceful. But under the second set of offences by which a free kick can be awarded, Salah clearly impeded Dias with contact, before Dias held Salah. Therefore, the first offence should have been punished and a free kick should have been awarded to City.
I assume Oliver didn't think the push by Salah was enough to warrant a free kick, or he didn't see it. It should have been picked up by VAR then.
This stuff about 'was it enough to warrant a penalty' is just nonsense though. This might apply to the first set of offences that must be accompanied by carelessness, recklessness or excessive force, but it doesn't come into play for either the pull by Dias (if indeed it was a pull) or when Salah impeded Dias with contact.
What we should be looking at here is:
1. Did Salah impede Dias by making contact with him? If so, foul for City.
2. If not 1 above, did Dias pull Salah or did Dias' arm on Salah impede Salah? If so, penalty.
It's all about opinions. Mine is that Salah's contact with Dias was similar to Dias' contact with Salah. Foul to City, or caution Salah for simulation.