Maddison: Officials petrified to make decisions due to VAR

James Maddison has claimed officials are “petrified” to make decisions after being denied a stoppage-time penalty against Leeds.

With Spurs drawing 1-1 in the 103rd minute, Maddison was challenged by Leeds striker Lukas Nmecha in the penalty box - only for referee Jarred Gillett and VAR to wave away the appeals.

• De Zerbi: Referee was not calm in Leeds draw
• Got Sky? Watch Premier League games LIVE on your phone📱
• Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW 📺

According to the Premier League Match Centre, the officials felt Nmecha got enough contact on the ball to justify the penalty not being given.

Monterosa

This content is provided by Monterosa, which may be using cookies and other technologies. To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies. You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Monterosa cookies or to allow those cookies just once. You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.

Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Monterosa cookies. To view this content you can use the button below to allow Monterosa cookies for this session only.

Enable Cookies Allow Cookies Once

Had it been awarded, Spurs would have had the chance from 12 yards to extend their lead over 18th-placed West Ham to four points with two games remaining - taking a major stride towards survival in the process.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The biggest VAR call in 24 hours! Should Spurs have been awarded a 90+13 penalty?

Spurs boss Roberto De Zerbi said that referee Gillett - who had earlier awarded Leeds a penalty for a wild overhead kick by Mathys Tel - was "not calm" during the match.

The controversy surrounding match officiating comes just over 24 hours after West Ham had their 95th-minute equaliser disallowed against Arsenal for a foul on David Raya by striker Pablo inside the area - an incident that took over four minutes to determine.

Maddison wrote on his Instagram account on Tuesday evening: "For clarity… The small, tiny touch on the ball to change direction came from the outside of my right foot, not Nmecha, and I told the ref that.

Also See:

• Who are Tottenham's last two games against?
• Stream Spurs' last two games on Sky with NOW

"But the check was over in about 20 seconds. Officials are petrified to make decisions on pitch now because of VAR.

"We keep fighting. COYS."

O'Hara: It's an obvious penalty

Reacting to the incident on Sky Sports Fan Club, former Spurs midfielder Jamie O'Hara added: "It's a penalty. I'm sorry, I don't care what anyone says.

"You can show me a million angles of this, where does the ball move? I don't believe there is enough movement from the ball and the player. That ball does not move. That is a penalty.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Jamie O'Hara can't understand how the referee didn't award a penalty to Tottenham Hotspur after James Maddison went down in the box under a challenge from Lukas Nmecha against Leeds United

"He bottled it, that ref. We saw a crazy decision the other day at West Ham - which was a foul. But they took an age over that decision. They looked at that for five minutes. They looked at the [Nmecha] challenge for 30 seconds and played on."

There were 49 seconds between the challenge being made on Maddison and referee Gillett receiving the news that his on-field decision of 'no penalty' was correct.

Does it even matter if Nmecha touches the ball?

Image: Jarred Gillett waves away Spurs' penalty appeals against Leeds

The first sign that Gillett was convinced that Nmecha played the ball was his decision to award a corner once the Maddison challenge was made. There was also the linesman on the touchline who would have helped make that decision.

However, there have been incidents in the past where penalties have been awarded, even though the defender has got a touch on the ball.

In January 2025, Arsenal's William Saliba was penalised for conceding a penalty on Brighton's Joao Pedro - despite the centre-back heading the ball before coming into contact with the attacker via a follow through.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PGMOL chief Howard Webb admits that the penalty incident during the Brighton v Arsenal match, involving William Saliba and Joao Pedro was unusual, but agrees that the Frenchman did commit a foul

Justifying the decision of a penalty, PGMO chief Howard Webb argued that getting a touch on the ball does not negate a penalty, especially when a follow through is concerned.

"That touch on the ball doesn't negate the possible award of a penalty," said Webb about the Saliba incident.

"We've seen other examples where the ball may touch a player but there's still heavy contact on the follow through and it's a penalty."