By Martin Graham
Tottenham described manager Thomas Frank Newcastle United late penalty as an “absolute mistake” after his side fought back for a 2-2 draw on Tyneside.
Spurs had looked set to walk away empty-handed earlier Cristian Romero’s The spectacular bicycle kick in stoppage time saved a point. Their equalizer came moments after the home side converted an 86th-minute spot-kick to take the lead.
The penalty was awarded after VAR advised referee Thomas Bramall to review a related incident Rodrigo Bentancur i Dan Burns as Newcastle prepared to take a corner. What initially looked like routine physical contact between the pair ended with both players on the turf. Although Bramall ignored calls for a foul in real time, his decision was overturned after the monitor checked.
Anthony Gordon He scored from 12 yards to put Eddie Howe’s side ahead, only for Romero to strike in the dying seconds to ensure the points were shared.
After the game, the Premier League match official told X that Bentancur was penalized for failing to track the ball and committing a “holding offense” inside the box.
Frank and Howe react to the controversial call
Frank expressed his frustration with the intervention, insisting that the decision on the field should have stood. He argued that the contact did not meet the criteria for a clear foul and that the VAR should only intervene when the error is obvious.
He stressed that even Newcastle figures he spoke to after the game did not believe the incident warranted a penalty. Calling for consistency, the Spurs boss maintained that Bramall had judged the challenge correctly the first time.
Howe, meanwhile, said he had only seen the footage immediately after the final whistle. He emphasized that Bentancur did not look at the ball, but instead fixed his attention on Burn, and suggested that this probably justified the award.
How officials evaluate decisions
Incidents involving fighting at set pieces are common, but the PGMOL uses several criteria to determine whether a foul should be called.
Players who focus solely on an opponent, ignoring attempts to contest the ball and affecting the movement of that opponent may be penalized.
If both footballers are equally caught or obstructed, the referees are advised to let play continue.
However, when an individual significantly restricts an opponent’s ability to challenge the ball, particularly through a non-footballing action, referees are encouraged to award a penalty.
These considerations were used as the basis for the decision which went in favor of Newcastle.
Experts call for greater consistency
Several analysts criticized the call, suggesting that similar incidents regularly occur with impunity. Izzy Christiansen argued that awarding a foot for that level of contact would mean penalties “every game”.
Clinton Morrison questioned the need for VAR intervention, pointing out that there were six more Premier League games to be played the following day and that many comparable moments would likely go unnoticed.
Jonathan Woodgate believed that Burn had put much more physical pressure on Bentancur, comparing the mismatch to a heavyweight contest.
Micah Richards accepted that Bentancur’s failure to see the ball matched part of the guidelines, but insisted the hold was minimal and that Burn himself was dominating the Spurs midfielder. He felt that Bramall had judged correctly before going on screen.
Jamie Redknapp noted that Burn did not complain at the time and said similar clashes happen “week in week out”. He said that if this is the new threshold, consistency must be followed.
