Tottenham looked set for a huge late opportunity to strengthen their survival bid after James Maddison went down under a challenge from Leeds striker Lukas Nmecha in the 103rd minute of their 1-1 draw. Referee Jarred Gillett and the VAR team ruled there was no penalty, a decision that has sparked debate.
According to the Premier League Match Centre, match officials judged that Nmecha got enough of the ball for the on-field decision of no penalty to stand. That judgement ended Spurs’ appeal and kept their wait for a Premier League penalty this season intact.
Had a spot-kick been awarded, Tottenham would have had the chance to push their lead over 18th-placed West Ham to four points with two games remaining — a significant swing in the race to avoid relegation.
Spurs boss Roberto De Zerbi was critical of the officiating, suggesting the referee did not appear calm during the closing stages. His comments followed an earlier contentious moment in the game when Gillett awarded Leeds a penalty for Mathys Tel’s overhead kick.
Former Spurs midfielder Jamie O’Hara, speaking on Sky Sports Fan Club, was unequivocal in his view: he called the incident a clear penalty and questioned why the VAR check was so brief compared with other lengthy reviews. There were 49 seconds between the contact on Maddison and the notification to Gillett that his original decision should stand — a turnaround O’Hara and others have highlighted as unusually quick given the stakes.
The central technical question is whether Nmecha’s touch on the ball removes the foul. Officials believed the striker got enough of the ball to justify no penalty, but the exact contact is not obvious from all angles, which is why opinions differ widely.
This is not the first time a touch-then-contact scenario has caused controversy. In January 2025, Arsenal’s William Saliba was judged to have conceded a penalty against Brighton’s Joao Pedro even though Saliba appeared to head the ball before making contact with the attacker on the follow-through. PGMOL chief Howard Webb defended that call at the time, saying a touch on the ball does not automatically rule out a penalty when subsequent contact is significant.
That precedent is why many pundits and supporters point out that a defender grazing the ball does not necessarily negate a foul — follow-through and the effect on the attacker are also relevant.
The Maddison incident also arrives amid wider scrutiny of late VAR decisions. Less than 24 hours earlier, West Ham had a 95th-minute equaliser disallowed against Arsenal after a lengthy review for an alleged foul in the area. Comparisons between the two matches have fuelled criticism about consistency and the pace of VAR interventions.
Ultimately the officials’ view — that Nmecha’s contact with the ball justified playing on — decided what was possibly the biggest moment of the match. Supporters, pundits and Tottenham’s camp remain divided, with strong arguments on both sides about whether the touch should have been decisive or whether the follow-through on Maddison warranted a penalty.