THE FUSE

Tottenham Hotspur boss Thomas Frank says it was an "absolute mistake" for the video assistant referee (VAR) to intervene and award Newcastle a penalty as his side earned a point in dramatic fashion at St James' Park.

Cristian Romero's injury-time overhead kick secured Spurs a 2-2 draw after the Magpies were awarded a controversial 86th-minute spot-kick with the score at 1-1.

Referee Thomas Bramall was sent to the pitchside monitor after VAR spotted Rodrigo Bentancur holding Newcastle defender Dan Burn in the penalty box as the hosts took a corner.

It looked like a tussle between the two players in the box as they both fell to the ground and, despite the official not giving the penalty initially, the Spurs midfielder was punished after the review.

Anthony Gordon converted from the spot before Romero's 95th-minute leveller rescued a point for Frank's men.

Premier League match manager said on X the penalty had been awarded because Bentancur "clearly does not look at the ball" while committing a "holding offence".

Spurs were unhappy with the decision, while pundits were also quick to criticise, suggesting it was the kind of incident that happens at corners in most matches.

"It was an absolute mistake from the VAR," said Spurs boss Frank.

"The referee did good to do the ref call and they encourage the refereeing call on the pitch. For me, that is never a penalty.

"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 added: "I hadn't seen it, I'm only seeing it now. The big thing is the defender isn't looking at the ball at all, he's looking at Dan [Burn]. I think it's probably the right call."

Why was the penalty awarded?

While holding and grappling in the box is a common occurrence on corners and free-kicks, the PGMOL take into account several considerations when deciding if a penalty should be awarded:

Players who only focus on an opponent and pay no attention to challenging for the ball and have a material impact, should be penalised.
Where both players are involved in simultaneous and similar actions (mutual holding), play should be allowed to continue.
Where one player clearly holds an opponent and this action clearly impacts the player's movement and/or the ability to play or challenge for the ball (material impact), this action should be penalised.
Where one player solely focuses on an opponent and makes a clear non-footballing action that clearly impacts the progress of the opponent, this action should be penalised.

'We want consistency' - what did the pundits say?

Former England midfielder Izzy Christiansen on BBC Radio 5 Live: "You're giving a penalty every single game if you're giving a penalty for that."

Ex-Premier League striker Clinton Morrison on BBC Radio 5 Live: "We've got six games tomorrow, there'll be loads of defending like that, let's see if VAR calls that.

"[VAR should] just stay out of it because there's no pulling of the shirt or anything. He's just standing his ground and not looking at it."

Former Tottenham and Newcastle defender Jonathan Woodgate on BBC Radio 5 Live: "Dan Burn climbed all over him. It's like a heavyweight UFC fighter against a featherweight."

Ex-Manchester City defender Micah Richards on Sky Sports: "Not looking at the ball fits the criteria but there is not enough holding there. Burn is just too strong for him - Bentancur holds him for a while, but now Burn is all over Bentancur.

"The referee made a really good decision in not giving it, then [going to the screen] puts doubt in his mind. Holding but not sustained, it's not enough."

Former Spurs midfielder Jamie Redknapp on Sky Sports: "Burn isn't even complaining. We see this week in, week out. If that is the threshold and penalties are going to be given, no problem, but we want consistency."