Saved by ‘special talent’ – but was the penalty awarded against Brighton justified?

A Memorable Moment for Kostoulas

It was a standout moment for Charalampos Kostoulas.
The 18-year-old Greek forward made a spectacular overhead kick to equalize during stoppage time—an impressive way to score his first goal at the Amex Stadium for Brighton.

The substitute, who joined from Olympiakos for £29.78 million in the summer, found the net just when hopes were fading for the Seagulls. They were trailing Bournemouth due to a controversial penalty decision awarded in the first half.

Brighton manager Fabian Hurzeler expressed his admiration for Kostoulas but remained frustrated with the decision that led to Bournemouth’s opening goal. Goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen was deemed to have fouled Amine Adli following a video assistant referee (VAR) check.

Hurzeler said, “It was a nice goal, and we all know his potential. However, we would rather have secured the win.” When asked if he believed the penalty was justified, he responded, “No. It’s tough to converse with refs; they have their views, and it’s hard to reach an understanding. We have to accept their decisions, even if we disagree.”

He went on to say, “A mere touch isn’t enough for a foul, as we’ve been informed before the season. Sometimes it’s not applied, which is the reality. Just because there is contact doesn’t mean it constitutes a foul.”

Kostoulas, a product of Olympiakos’s academy, made his professional debut in 2024, scoring seven goals in 22 league appearances last season. If a £1.7 million add-on clause is triggered during his stint at Brighton, it would set a record transfer fee for a Greek player.

Since his arrival at Brighton, Kostoulas has appeared in 17 matches and netted two times, with captain Lewis Dunk praising him as a “special talent.” Dunk remarked, “I’ve seen him score even better in training, but that was unbelievable. He’s shown plenty of promise, and there’s much more to come from him as he adapts to a new league and country.”

Why Was the Penalty Awarded?

The contentious incident unfolded around the 30-minute mark when Bournemouth’s Adli was originally booked for simulation by referee Paul Tierney after going down under Verbruggen’s challenge. However, after a review prompted by VAR official Jarred Gillett, Tierney changed his call and awarded a penalty, citing contact had taken place.

Marcus Tavernier converted the penalty, giving Bournemouth the lead, which appeared poised to secure a win until Kostoulas’s late equalizer. Replays indicated minimal contact from Verbruggen’s raised foot, yet with the ball seemingly away from goal, Brighton’s players, staff, and supporters were left infuriated by the penalty decision.

Following a weekend filled with discussions surrounding officiating decisions, Bournemouth’s manager Andoni Iraola felt the outcome was justified, stating, “Upon seeing the replay, I noticed Verbruggen lifted his leg and made contact with Amine. Thus, I expected the penalty call.”

Former Arsenal striker Thierry Henry concurred, stating on Sky Sports, “Yes, it is a penalty. His leg is raised while he is making contact with the player, even though the ball is still in play.” He emphasized that the situation could have been avoided even though contact was established.

Meanwhile, ex-Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher noted, “Ten years ago, such penalties might not have been awarded. The ball was still playable, but there was contact, and Adli was not getting to the ball.”

Statistics indicated that VAR-related errors had increased by 30% in the first half of the Premier League season, rising from ten to thirteen mistakes. Despite this increase, the count was a notable improvement from previous seasons, which recorded twenty errors at the same point in 2023-24 and twenty-three in 2022-23.

‘Clear and Obvious?’ – Analysis

Was the penalty truly “clear and obvious?” This is most likely the question Brighton officials are pondering after the VAR intervention regarding Bournemouth’s penalty.

Had Tierney correctly identified the contact from Verbruggen on Adli, declaring it a foul, the subsequent pitchside review would not have occurred. His initial ruling was technically sound.

The VAR conclusion stemmed from Tierney’s earlier mistake, as he booked Adli for simulation. This misjudgment allowed for a review of the situation. However, there remained an argument that the contact was so minimal that it shouldn’t have warranted a penalty.

A critical point was that Verbruggen’s efforts involved an atypical high boot that contacted Adli’s thigh after he had sidestepped the keeper. Whether Adli could have maintained possession of the ball afterward was beside the point; the foul contact occurred while the ball was still in play.

‘Football Is Turning Into a Sport for Divers’ – What You Said

Sam, Brighton: “It was a dreadful decision to overturn, barely touched him while he was already going down. This is an embarrassment for the referee and VAR.”

Simeon, Woking: “Another week, another poor VAR call. They need to eliminate this!”

Russ, Upton: “Football’s not enjoyable anymore. Why did the referee change his decision on that penalty? The attacker a) isn’t shooting, b) won’t reach the ball after moving it, and c) isn’t in enough of a situation to fall down anyway! It seems like adding more referees has made the problems worse!”

Phil, Toronto: “The term ‘clear and obvious’ is problematic. Minor infringements are now accounted as obvious fouls. While technology can assist with goals and offsides, the referee, who has a better view of the action, should primarily make decisions on tackles and handballs. Players waiting around doesn’t equate to clarity.”

Tom, Innsbruck: “Let’s stop with the obsession over ‘there was contact.’ Does the player go down because of the foul, or do they dive as soon as touched? The sport is turning into one for divers.”