Alisson Becker has picked up an £8,000 fine for misconduct following a furious outburst in the wake of Liverpool’s 2-2 draw with Nottingham Forest last month.The Brazilian goalkeeper was left raging after he conceded a penalty to Oliver Glasner’s side at Anfield, with former Red Neco Williams being hauled down in the area.Morgan Gibbs-White subsequently buried the spot kick, before Victor Munoz levelled the scores to help Andoni Iraola’s side avoid defeat.Becker, still livid with the penalty decision at full time, was seen kicking the fourth official’s board as he made his way towards the tunnel, and on Thursday was hit with a four-figure fine for the outburst.A statement from the FA read: ‘Liverpool’s Alisson Becker has been fined £8,000 for misconduct at the Premier League fixture against Nottingham Forest on 29 August. ‘It was alleged that the goalkeeper acted in an improper manner around the tunnel area after the final whistle. Alisson Becker in a heated discussion with referee Sam Barrott during the clash with Forest Alisson has been fined £8,000 after kicking the fourth official’s board in frustration following Liverpool’s 2-2 draw with Nottingham Forest last month’Alisson Becker has subsequently accepted the charge against him and received the standard penalty.’The sanction follows a ruling from the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel which found that the penalty should not have been awarded in the first instance.The body, however, insisted that VAR Michael Oliver was correct not to advise on-field official Sam Barrott to review the decision on a pitchside monitor, with the incident not reaching the threshold for a video intervention.The KMI panel voted 3:2 that Barrott should not have given the penalty, and supported the VAR outcome 5:0. ‘The contact from Alisson was inevitable as a consequence of his momentum in attempting to save the ball,’ the KMI Panel said. ‘The contact made was not reckless and below the threshold for a penalty.’However, the non intervention by the VAR was unanimously supported on the basis that it was not a clear and obvious error.’