Did a Tottenham player get away with a game-changing foul? The controversy surrounding Cristian Romero's challenge on Igor Thiago during Tottenham's 0-0 draw against Brentford has ignited a fierce debate about VAR's effectiveness and consistency. Some argue that Romero should have been sent off, potentially altering the entire outcome of the match. But here's where it gets controversial: Was it truly a clear red card offense?
Following the New Year's Day stalemate, Brentford's manager, Keith Andrews, didn't mince words. He firmly believed that Romero's tackle on Thiago, when the striker was through on goal, warranted an immediate dismissal. In fact, Romero didn't even concede a free-kick, let alone receive a card. Andrews stated plainly in the post-match press conference that it was "a blatant red card" because "Thiago was stopped from getting to the ball".
Replays show Romero making a somewhat desperate attempt to intercept the ball, resulting in Thiago being brought down. This is where the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) steps in, specifically Alex Chilowicz in this instance. VAR's role isn't simply to re-referee the game. They must determine two crucial aspects: first, whether the on-field referee made a "clear and obvious error" in not calling a foul, and second, whether that foul undeniably denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). And this is the part most people miss: VAR can't intervene just because they think a foul occurred. It has to be both a foul and worthy of a red card.
Romero's challenge involved his left leg impeding Thiago's progress, acting as a barrier. It's tough to dispute that a foul occurred. So, the question becomes: why didn't the on-field officials award a free-kick? One explanation is that, from their vantage point, it might have appeared that Romero successfully hooked the ball away, as he ended up in possession. However, this possession was arguably a consequence of momentum after the foul, not a clean, executed challenge.
This brings us back to VAR and the DOGSO assessment. Referees are instructed to mentally reconstruct the play, imagining the scenario without the foul. In this case, Thiago had the ball in front of him, with no other defender in close proximity, just outside of the penalty area. In all likelihood, Thiago would have controlled the ball, advanced a few yards, and taken a shot on goal. The fact that Romero ended up with the ball might have introduced some doubt for VAR – creating the perception that Thiago wouldn't have maintained control. However, that only happened after the foul. A DOGSO red card, therefore, seems like the more logical decision.
It's worth noting that while the ball may have touched Romero's arm, it was deemed accidental and not a handball offense. This incident adds to Romero's recent disciplinary record; it could have been his third red card in less than a month.
Interestingly, this wasn't the first time Andrews felt Romero should have been sent off for a challenge on Thiago. In their previous encounter on December 6th, Romero made a scissors-style tackle that Andrews considered a "very easy one" for the officials to spot. The Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel even voted 3-2 that Romero should have been sent off by the referee in that earlier game. But it was a 4-1 vote that the VAR was correct in not intervening.
Romero was sent off for two yellow cards against Liverpool on December 20th, highlighting his aggressive style of play. In broader terms, the debate touches upon a recurring theme in football: players going to ground too easily to win decisions versus the notion that staying on your feet can mean missing out on a deserved foul.
Consider a similar situation from another New Year's Day match where Hugo Ekitike was challenged by Jaka Bijol. Bijol had his arms around the striker, but Ekitike stayed on his feet, attempting to get a shot away. He was ultimately crowded out and failed to get a shot off. Arne Slot, the Liverpool boss, commented that his team is known for staying on their feet, and that it unfortunately isn't recognized by officials. He pondered whether they should change their approach, but ultimately decided against it, suggesting that going down might have resulted in a penalty and red card.
Bijol was spared a VAR review because he wasn't deemed to be holding Ekitike in a traditional sense (e.g., tugging the shirt). A VAR always considers the impact of the foul. That's far harder to assess when a player stays on their feet. Therefore, staying upright inherently reduces the likelihood of getting a decision in your favor. Had Ekitike gone down, demonstrating the impact of the foul, it could well have resulted in a penalty and a DOGSO red card.
So, what's the takeaway? The decision to not send off Romero against Brentford highlights the complexities and inconsistencies of VAR. It also sparks a larger conversation about player behavior and the incentives to go down easily. But here's a question to ponder: Is the current system inadvertently rewarding players who exaggerate contact, and are we punishing those who try to stay on their feet and play through challenges? What truly constitutes a "clear and obvious error" in the eyes of VAR, and is there enough transparency in the decision-making process? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
