James Maddison penalty incident: Should Spurs have been given 103rd-minute penalty for challenge by Leeds striker Lukas Nmecha?
Tottenham were denied a late penalty by VAR in their 1-1 draw vs Leeds; James Maddison was felled by Lukas Nmecha but referee Jarred Gillett and VAR felt the Leeds striker got the ball; Roberto De Zerbi said the official "wasn't calm" as Spurs' relegation fears carry on
Tuesday 12 May 2026 13:30, UK
Tottenham were denied a last-gasp penalty in their 1-1 draw with Leeds - one that could have seen them all-but-secure Premier League survival.
With Spurs drawing 1-1 in the 103rd minute, James Maddison was felled 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.
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.
However, the evidence of Nmecha getting enough contact on the ball is not exactly clear. And Spurs' wait for a first Premier League penalty of the season rolls on into the final two matches of the season.
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.
"For sure we suffered the pressure today. We didn't play with passion with the ball, too frenetic but also the referee was not calm today," De Zerbi said.
"I can't understand the polemic about yesterday's VAR because it was 200 per cent a foul, not 100 per cent, 200 per cent."
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.
"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?
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.
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."
