Frank calls Newcastle penalty decision ‘a clear VAR error’

By Martin Graham

Tottenham manager Thomas Frank described Newcastle United’s late penalty as an “absolute mistake” after his team battled to a 2-2 draw on Tyneside.

Spurs had appeared set to leave empty-handed before Cristian Romero’s spectacular stoppage-time bicycle kick salvaged a point. His equalizer came just moments after the hosts converted an 86th-minute spot-kick to edge in front.

The penalty was given after referee Thomas Bramall was advised by VAR to review an incident involving Rodrigo Bentancur and Dan Burn as Newcastle prepared to take a corner. What initially looked like routine physical contact between the pair ended with both players on the turf. Despite Bramall ignoring calls for a foul in real time, his decision was overturned after the monitor check.

Anthony Gordon scored from 12 yards to put Eddie Howe’s side ahead, only for Romero to strike in the dying seconds and ensure the points were shared.

Following the match, the Premier League’s match manager said on X that Bentancur was penalized because he failed to track the ball and committed a “holding offense” inside the area.

Frank and Howe react to controversial call

Frank voiced frustration with the intervention, insisting the on-field decision should have stood. He argued that the contact did not meet the criteria for a clear infringement and that VAR should only step in when the error is obvious.

He stressed that even Newcastle figures he spoke with after the match 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 viewed the footage immediately after the final whistle. He highlighted that Bentancur was not looking toward the ball, instead fixing his attention on Burn, and suggested that this likely justified the award.

How decisions are assessed by officials

Incidents involving grappling at set pieces are frequent, but the PGMOL uses several criteria to determine whether a foul should be given.

Players who concentrate solely on an opponent, ignoring attempts to contest the ball, and affect that opponent’s movement can be punished.

If both footballers grab or obstruct each other equally, officials are encouraged to let play continue.

However, where one individual noticeably restricts an opponent’s ability to challenge for the ball—particularly through a non-footballing action—referees are advised to give a penalty.

These considerations were used as the basis for the decision that went in Newcastle’s favor.

Pundits demand greater consistency

Several analysts criticized the call, suggesting similar incidents occur regularly without punishment. Izzy Christiansen argued that awarding a spot-kick for that level of contact would mean penalties “every single game”.

Clinton Morrison questioned the need for VAR intervention, pointing out that six more Premier League fixtures were to be played the following day and that numerous comparable moments would likely go unnoticed.

Jonathan Woodgate believed Burn had exerted far more physical pressure on Bentancur, likening the mismatch to a heavyweight contest.

Micah Richards accepted that Bentancur’s failure to watch the ball matched part of the guidelines but insisted the holding was minimal and that Burn himself was overpowering the Spurs midfielder. He felt Bramall had judged correctly before going to the screen.

Jamie Redknapp noted that Burn did not complain at the time and said similar tussles happen “week in, week out”. He said that if this is the new threshold, consistency must follow.