Newcastle 2-2 Tottenham: Jamie Redknapp slams lack of consistency after VAR awards Magpies controversial penalty
Jamie Redknapp has slammed the decision to award Newcastle a controversial late penalty in their 2-2 draw with Tottenham.
A double from Spurs captain Cristian Romero salvaged a point for the under pressure Thomas Frank, but it was the decision to penalise Rodrigo Bentancur for a tussle with Dan Burn that became a flashpoint late in the game.
The pair were battling with one another at a corner which saw Burn tumble over the Spurs midfielder without any complaints. Play was waved on by on-field official Thomas Bramall, only for VAR to recommend a pitch-side review.
The decision was overturned, allowing Anthony Gordon to put the hosts back in front from the penalty spot with four minutes to go.
Enable Cookies
Allow Cookies Once
“Look at Dan Burn, he’s not even complaining,” Redknapp said.
“He gets up to make a gesture, but he’s not once got up with any aggression to say to the referee ‘what are you doing?’
“Is he holding him? Is he impeding him? Yes, possibly. We see this week in and week out.
“Where’s the consistency? We see this game in and game out in the Premier League and they don’t get given.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Highlights of the Premier League match between Newcastle and Tottenham Hotspur.
“If that’s going to be the threshold and penalties are going to be given for that, no problem. But we want consistency, and that isn’t.
“They are having a definite wrestle, but it’s both of them. Dan’s leaning forward trying to be elaborate.
“I don’t see that as a penalty as I’ve seen a lot worse that aren’t given.”
Richards: ‘I don’t understand’
The rules for a holding offence state that there has to be ‘sustained and/impactful holding on an opponent’ or a ‘clear impact on the opponent’s opportunity to play the ball.’
Threshold for holding offence
- Sustained and/or impactful holding
- Clear impact on the opponent’s opportunity to play or challenge for the ball
- Clear (extreme) non-footballing action with impact on the opponent’s movement
- Not looking at the ball, only focusing on opponent and not challenging for the ball
- Holding an opponent with both arms
A player will also be judged on whether or not they are looking at the ball, which has at times become a staple of how Thoms Frank’s side defend set-pieces to stop opponents from getting the run on them.
Sky Sports’ Micah Richards, though, was of the opinion that Bentacur’s defending did not meet the threshold to be penalised.
“In terms of not looking at the ball, that meets the criteria. When we had the discussions with the Premier League, that was something they were going to take into consideration,” Richards said.
“There’s not enough holding there. Dan Burn is too strong for him.
“Bentancur holds him for a little while, makes sure he can’t get a run on him, and then Burn is all over Bentancur.
“I don’t understand. The referee made a really good decision in not giving it. It goes to VAR, puts doubt in his mind and then he’s going to have to give it.
“He’s holding, but it’s not sustained holding. It’s not enough. It shouldn’t be a penalty.”
‘Very disappointing’ – what the managers said
Thomas Frank believes that the original onfield decision was the correct call
Tottenham boss Thomas Frank:
“It was an absolute mistake from the VAR.
“For me that is never a penalty, there are 10 of those a game.
“Even speaking to some from Newcastle, (they) don’t think it’s a penalty and we need consistency.
“I think the referee’s call on the pitch, he nailed it, and VAR can only be if it’s clear and obvious.”
Newcastle boss Eddie Howe:
“I’ve seen it again, the defender doesn’t look at the ball, he’s just focused on Dan and Dan goes down, so I can see why it was given.”
What’s coming up in the Premier League?
